[dns-operations] requirements for TLD servers
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Mar 22 15:27:49 UTC 2010
On 22 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Peter Koch wrote:
> Agree it could, but disagree for the "should", unless you'd want to
> start an infinite endeavour. Think "jurisdiction" or "constituency".
I can't see how these things can (or could) be linked in any way to
what is a technical matter concerning engineering/operations. An IETF
or OARC document is not legally binding on anyone and any
"jurisdiction" or "constituency" is free to ignore it.
If some ccTLD(?) registry did ignore such an agreed engineering BCP
and then their government/regulator not unreasonably started asking
questions about RFC2870-bis compliance, that would be a National
Matter. It wouldn't hurt too IMO if ICANN expected better DNS
resilience from gTLDs. The current requirements are rather weak: just
pass the CNNP test. I accept that some ccTLDs don't have the resources
to match the best infrastructure. Even so, an agreed set of minimum
requirements would give them something to aim at as well as something
which could be referenced by RFPs, hosting contracts, etc.
Peter you seem to be saying that there shouldn't be something which
documents a reasonable set of minimum requirements for important DNS
zones because this might interfere with layer-9 silliness in certain
"jurisdictions" or "constituencies". I hope I'm wrong about that.
More information about the dns-operations
mailing list