Re: [dns-wg] RIPE's MNAME recommendation

[Peter Koch <]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:12:05AM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:

> issue I have had one zone flat rejected by two registrars and was told 
> by another after some discussion quite authoritatively that although 
> they would let it slide, DENIC wouldn't allow it and the same would go 
> for any .CH or .AT domain.  I'm currently batting 1 for 3 against.

I'd recommend that for "authoritative" answers on registration policy the
registry's documentation be consulted.

> It's been my experience that the registrars typically run their web 
> scripts on the zone and if it doesn't pass their test (which include 
> the RIPE-203 recommendations), then your request is rejected.  After 

If that were the case it would be ill-advised. RIPE-203 clearly states its
target audience *and* intentionally does not offer any intervals but instead
recommends fixed values for the various SOA fields. I'm not aware of a
registry that would insist on fixed particular numbers here.

> you call them and finally reach someone who can help you, they point 
> to RIPE-203, end of discussion.  I have no problem trying to take this 
> up with individual registrars but it feels like battling windmills.  I 

Let's please keep two issues separate:

1) potential updates to RIPE-203 due to ambuguity or changed premises

2) alleged or evidenced use of RIPE-203 as a basis for policy or policy
   enforcement

You see to have run into a problem with (2), but that does not necessarily
call for a change to RIPE-203.

> have a stealth primary master with a private IP, no RFC 1918 address 
> pollution and no dynamic updates configured for this zone at all. What 
> is a sysadmin to do?

Pick one of the announced name servers?

-Peter