Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c

  > Marten Terpstra <Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net> writes:
  > 
  > In the past (Blasco has mentioned this before) we said to include the
  > zone-c of the parent zone, since he/she maintains the MX records.

Sounds reasonable!

  > Looking at the number of syntax errors in
  > the database currently for domains, and the population, I would even
  > vote for (a) or (b), but this has been rejected by the dns-wg on
  > several occassions (on very good grounds). The question was and is
  > whether the domain objects give added information compared to what is
  > in the DNS. With 4.9 and the TXT and RP RRs I am not quite sure if
  > these grounds still hold ...

Can the DNS WG please put this on the agenda again and provide
a paper with a comparison of what can be put in the DNS versus
what is in the database. Once that's done the DNS and db working
groups can make a recommendation which is written up and can be
referenced.

Daniel

A personal HFl-.02's worth:

One positive aspect about domain objects in the database is that it
gives TLD registrars a well defined format to keep their 
administration, at least a minimal version. The database then provides
a way to make that available by another means than the DNS.

I am convinced that if *all* TLD registrars kept at least this level 
of administration it would improve many a TLD registry.

Daniel