[dns-operations] Dumb question: why is it that some registries limit the nameservers that can be delegated to?

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri Sep 12 01:24:16 UTC 2014

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:35:40PM -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> It was curious to see that a to-be-unnamed TLD registry, a newcomer
> to the scene many years after the holy wars that ended up defining
> the current RFCs, writing completely new code, mentioned that they
> found attributes to be a better option

Well, note, the RFCs actually allow you to do one or the other, so
there was no "victor" in the war.  Many people when designing a new
registry think attributes are better because they don't create
cross-object links.  If you come from the database side of the house
(which I do), you are given shudders because of the potential for data
inconsistency in glue.  Lots of new registries don't have a glue
problem early on, and so this never seems like it's worth worrying
about.  That's the real reason I prefer the host-object approach.  But
like Frederico, I don't want to reignite a controversy.

> better, but for me it indicates that the role in the value chain can
> play a part in which option is preferred.

Yes.  Interoperability is way more important that just about anything
else on the Internet.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the dns-operations mailing list