On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 4:39 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> On 5/4/23 20:07, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>
> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a domain and point
> the DNS at some nameservers which they don't control, and have no
> relationship with.
>
> If this is common, I'm
On 05May23, Warren Kumari apparently wrote:
> I think that a parent should check if the name servers that are
> being proposed actually answer for the domain[0], and strongly
> suggest (but do not prevent) that that be fixed[1].
"Strongly suggest" is definitely as far as I would go because you
On 5/4/23, 5:08 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" wrote:
>
>I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree precisely on what
> "lame" means,
>what is the call to action when a zone or its name servers are declared
> lame?
>
>And how is that different from any other form
>> I imagine that others also spend time on sorting out these entirely
>> unnecessary issues. If guidance were developed on delegation acceptance
>> checks,
>
> Well, yes... but where?
ccNSO, perhaps?
My advice would be to only enforce checks where violations would
negatively impact operations
Hi Peter,
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 04:39, Peter Thomassen <[pe...@desec.io](mailto:On Fri,
May 5, 2023 at 04:39, Peter Thomassen < wrote:
>> Having the delegating party check for service for the requested zone
>> at time of delegation request and refuse to update / register if
>> this check fails
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:46 AM Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 04:39, Peter Thomassen > wrote:
>
> > Having the delegating party check for service for the requested zone
> > at time of delegation request and refuse to update / register if
> > this check fails
>
> It
On 5/4/23 20:07, Havard Eidnes wrote:
As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
control, and have no relationship with.
If this is common, I'm abhorred.
Having the delegating party check for service for the
