New draft charter for the RIPE DNS WG

At 10:57 AM +0200 2002/07/12, Bruce Campbell wrote:

>  	Reverse domains (weekly):
>  	http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/stats/revdns/index.html

	This is a start, but there's not enough information here.  We see 
how many zones are "OK" vs. "not OK", but we don't see how many zones 
have problems like lame delegations, SOA serial number mis-matches, 
mis-matches in zone content even though the serial number is the 
same, which servers don't have proper reverse DNS set up for their IP 
address, what I like to call orphan delegations (where additional 
servers are listed as being authoritative within the zone but are not 
listed in the delegation data), etc....  No DNS debugging tool I know 
of catches all these problems, but we could work on that.

	We also don't see tests like which servers are public caching 
recursive nameservers, what versions of what nameservers are running 
(both by doing a version.bind query and by doing fingerprinting of 
the server) or otherwise exhibit behaviour that would be considered 
insecure.

	Moreover, while this information is being made publicly 
available, it does not appear that any pro-active use of this 
information is being made (i.e., e-mail messages being sent to the 
owners of the zone as well as the owners of the server(s) in 
question, etc...).


	Even if this deeper level of investigation & reporting were done 
for just the TLD zones that are in the geographical area belonging to 
RIPE, I think that this would be a very good thing.

>  	Forward domains in the RIPE region (monthly):
>  	http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/stats/hostcount/index.html

	Again, there's just not enough detail here.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.