[dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com

[Mark Andrews]

In message <3c1ba59ee6484aec9ac3fa8bb3e97d81 at PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG
>, Leo Vegoda writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Which is why you should have continued with the proceedures in RFC
> > 1033 and requested excommunication.
> 
> In the context of the DNS, what does excommunication mean?

The delegation and any glue records below it are removed from the
published zone.  I would think it would only be until such time as
the underlying problem is addressed.

This is documented in RFC 1033 as the step of last resort:

COMPLAINTS

   These are the suggested steps you should take if you are having
   problems that you believe are caused by someone else's name server:


   1.  Complain privately to the responsible person for the domain.  You
   can find their mailing address in the SOA record for the domain.

   2.  Complain publicly to the responsible person for the domain.

   3.  Ask the NIC for the administrative person responsible for the
   domain.  Complain.  You can also find domain contacts on the NIC in
   the file NETINFO:DOMAIN-CONTACTS.TXT

   4.  Complain to the parent domain authorities.

   5.  Ask the parent authorities to excommunicate the domain.


> How would it make the world a better place?

It makes people fix problems but raising them to a level that they
cannot ignore if they intend to still have the name be visible in
the DNS.

The parent also becomes a neutral third party who presumably would
not act on the request without evidence of a problem.

> Regards,
> 
> Leo
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org