[dns-wg] RIPE's MNAME recommendation

On Sep 30, 2005, at 12:19, Paul Herman wrote:

> In a SOA RR of ours we have an MNAME that corresponds to a
> primary master server which has a private IP address.  This is causing
> problems with many RIPE member registrars.
>
> the problem arises when I try to transfer, say, the ownership of
> a ".de" zone using DENIC, because [RIPE1] additionally recommends
> that this be a valid address of the primary master, "valid" being the
> key word here.  This is a problem, because many RIPE member registrars
> are indeed enforcing this policy.
>
> I gather, however, from more recent messages from Mr. Koch (who  
> authored
> [RIPE1]), that the "MNAME field need not be part of the NS RRSet and
> need not be accessible." [ICANN-FORUM].  BTW, to my knowledge this
> is also neither enforced by IANA nor ICANN.
>
> Is it possible that RIPE could consider relaxing this "recommendation"
> that causes problems for RFC compliant zones?

Have you looked at the agenda for the DNS WG at the upcoming RIPE  
meeting? This includes a discussion on updating RIPE document 203:  
"Recommendations on SOA values". Perhaps you could make your views  
known then? Or, if the WG decides to update 203, you could contribute  
to that effort? Please bear in mind too that 203 was published in  
1999 and stealth master servers were not as common then as they are  
today.

I am confused about your reference to "this policy". There is no RIPE- 
wide policy on SOA values as far as I know. RIPE document 203 is a  
recommendation, that's all. Of course everyone is free to use 203 (or  
ignore it) as guidance when forming their own local policies and  
procedures. So if you are having problems because of such a policy, I  
think it's best if you raise the issue with those who have applied  
that policy.

Asking the WG to revisit 203 is all very well. In fact it looks as  
though that's already in hand. But you may still have to persuade the  
local policy-makers to change things if/when a revised version of 203  
is produced. In short, "fixing" 203 could still mean the policies at  
those registrars would have to be changed. They might not even know  
or care about the new document.