To:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
cc:
bmanning@karoshi.com, Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-dns-ietf-dnsop@space.net>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Date:
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:38:52 +0100
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:11:19 +0859." <200309180111.KAA12812@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: against broken tld content
>>>>> "Masataka" == Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> writes:
Masataka> Are you saying you think "broken" fits well and you
Masataka> still need a definition on it?
I think what Bill was saying was that your draft needs to define what
you mean by broken. [Not that I speak for Bill.] Brokenness could
cover many things: lame servers, inconsistent zone contents, wrong
DNSSEC keys or elapsed SIGs (ha!), "too slow" propagation of new zone
data, unresolvable NS records, servers with polluted caches, zones
with idiot wildcarding, all name servers behind one router or AS,
buggy DNS software, name servers operated by someone called Jim, etc,
etc. Which of these scenarios fall within your implicit category of
broken? If you want people to take certain action whenever they
encounter a broken name server, there should be a clear definition of
what broken means. If there isn't, anyone will be able to apply their
own arbitrary definition of brokenness. That would be even more broken
as it would lead to lots of confusion and inconsistency. For example,
most of this list will probably have an opposite opinion on the
current level of brokenness of .com and .net from the people at
Verisign who recently added that controversial wildcard.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.