[dns-wg] Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN

At 17:42 13/05/03, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>The answer to this is buried in the debate over whether the reverse
>>map "MUST" be supported.  This debate is happening (dormantly for
>>now) in the IETF DNSOP WG.  I think the answer is yes - based on the
>>observation that no one is debating whether the forward map is
>>needed. ;)  I can't offer a pat answer to "why?" (but where there's
>>smoke there's either a fire or a troll). ;/
>
>My personal view is that _if_ the IETF DNSOP WG is coming to the 
>conclusion that there should be delegations there, the requirements and 
>view on "what is good and what is bad" should be the same.
>
>DNS is DNS is DNS.

May I comment - may be wrongly as a "user".

Reading this usual formula you use a question comes to me:
which "DNS' do you refer to each time?

The DNS definition is: it is three (actually four) different things
(STD013):

1. the domain namespace
     the resource records
2. the name servers
3. the resolvers

I am wrong in feeling that actually what you also talk about is also
a fith thing: a query protocol ("will I get the response I ask for?").

IMHO this might have an impact on the way one conceives,
explains, tests the obligations of the participants?

As a DNS non-geek, I must say I am happy when it works. The
same as when IE delivers me the nice HTML page I want and
that Netscape does not delivers. However I am fully consious I
am wrong, and that this may dagerous ("when the last NS turns
lame" as you say).

What I want to say is that if the DNS - seen as a protocol by
the user is resillient - it is also a danger. Without being imposed
rules, I am sure users would be happy to be _toldà about their
risks, mistakes etc. and way to improve their set-up.

When I cannot register a ".fr" or a ".tp" name because of the
retsrictions imposed by their NICs I am upset. I would prefer -
and I would be gratefull - if they told me what is wrong I could
correct when I want, but securing the DN in the meanwhile?
As does ".ws" if I am correct (you can force the registration).

Example: when the nameserver is on the same machine as
the site, I never understood why I would need two name servers.
Either the machine is in operation or not. Why could I not
have only one nameserver in that case?  Had to use two IP
addresses on the same machine, with two names for the
same nameserver once to get a ".tp" name validated.

I would be really interested if Patrick's work permitted that:
to tell me what may be wrong in my files and to teach me
to correcty right them?

jfc