[dns-wg] Turning off lameness checks for reverse

Shane,

> Is there any support for disabling lameness checks for reverse DNS?

given that these warnings have just started being sent out, I believe
such a drastic action is premature.  As a matter of history, RIPE-400
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-400.html> was published in January 2007.
The NCC had planned to start sending notifications mid 2008, but that
was postponed partly due to "the" bug.  In October 2008, a random sample
was targeted with earlier attempts of the notifications, after which at the
end of February this year, the first full run was executed.

> 1. It seems that they cause some annoyance to administrators.

I guess Wilfried has already kindly volunteered in public to collect some
feedback to be able to quantify and qualify "seems" and "annoyance".
Of course, the messages shouldn't be annoying, but it might just be that
text can be improved.

> 2. As far as I know there has never been a study showing improvement for
>    DNS users based on removing lameness in reverse DNS (or in any DNS).

RFC 4697 is but one source of experiences with 3rd party annoyances
caused by lame delegations.

> These two things suggest to me that the pro-active lameness checks
> should be disabled, at least until it is shown that lameness actually
> causes problems.

I haven't seen reports of a desastrous failure.  In the spirit of constructive
discussion, could we give the NCC a chance to report experiences, collect
feedback and improve the service when and where necessary?  It's only been
about four weeks.

Regards,
  Peter