Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c

>       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!
> Not at all: by the same token one could argue that the person
> maintaining a top level zone file should be registered as the
> zone-c for every primary subdomain, since (s)he maintains the
> NS records [in the top level zone file], just like in the case
> of MX-only domains (s)he maintains the MX records [in the top
> level zone file].

Well, this is an example of what I presently do with the few domains
under "no" that are registered in the RIPE database (and which are of
the "MX-only" variant):

domain:  fdata.no
descr:   Fellesdata A/S, Oslo
admin-c: Geir Engebakken
tech-c:  Geir Engebakken
zone-c:  Uninett Hostmaster
remarks: MX-only, maintained in "no" zone
changed: Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no 931124
source:  RIPE

> I've always just copied the admin-c into the zone-c in these
> cases, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a
> zone for an MX-only domain and the admin contact can be held
> equally well responsible for the MX records, even though (s)he
> doesn't put/maintain them in the next higher zone file, as is
> the case with NS records.

Well, in case of DNS trouble (misconfiguration or similar lossage), the
"zone-c" would in this case point in the wrong direction, no?

Maybe the definition of "zone-c" should be refined to something like

	The zone contact for the zone where the authoritative data for
	the domain is registered.

Note that in the case of a fully delegated domain, the NS records in the
parent zone are actually not authoritative.

> I would suggest to consider the presence of the *zc attribute
> mandatory only if *ns attributes are present in the domain entry.

Maybe worth discussing?  (My initial reaction was "yes, this sounds
great!", but after thinking about it for a while and reformulating the
response to the previous paragraph, I'm not so sure anymore.)

- Havard