[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       rfci-discuss
Subject:    Re: [RFCI-Discuss] whois.nic.or.kr (was Message: 3 - Re: RFCI-Discuss
From:       "Derek J. Balling" <dredd () megacity ! org>
Date:       2005-07-12 14:04:22
Message-ID: 67487B5F-E411-4F0A-B35D-E95183BCBDBD () megacity ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Jul 12, 2005, at 08:05 AM, Administrative Account wrote:
>     It maybe just my age that cause my expectations, but the specific
> language above states the the network address (re: IP either v4 or  
> v6 in
> most cases) as well as the host names are to be specified;  I find  
> some
> registrars do always specify the IP addresses, some do only if the  
> host
> is a "listed" host (i.e. in the root DNS cache) and some never specify
> the IP.

I think this follows from the previous message about distributed  
WHOIS. That verbiage was written in the day of a monolithic single  
WHOIS server, which knew "all" about all hosts, domains, etc., and  
the relationships between them. Now $REGISTRAR_A may not know about  
nameservers within $OTHER_DOMAIN that's hosted at $REGISTRAR_B...  
they can probably consult the roots, but I would say that the chance  
of accidentally using stale data there makes it more logical for them  
to simply refer to the name by itself and not the IP address.

>     In the past, whois nominations have been accepted and listed on
> the basis of the IPs listed not matching current DNS records.

What?!  Can you cite a couple examples, because that's never been  
part of our listing criteria and any such domains should be removed  
immediately.

>   What is
> the "rule" applied when the registrar does not list them

The rule is and has always been, for whois anyway, that this is  
completely irrelevant.

> Which would seem to explicitly require that there be two distinct name
> servers, not merely two hostnames at a single IP;  Has this  
> requirement
> been relaxed in some other RFC or document with which I am unfamiliar,
> or does these terms still remain authoritative - i.e. should a  
> domain be
> listable for having only a single server?  Or is this just an artifact
> of my own recollection when ISI would "test" your servers before  
> adding
> a site to the routing tables (which clearly, the InterNIC no longer  
> does)?

I think it's an artifact of when there was an actual requirement (by  
InterNIC) for there to be two working NS servers prior to the domain  
being granted.

D


["smime.p7s" (application/pkcs7-signature)]

_______________________________________________
RFCI-Discuss mailing list
RFCI-Discuss@lists.megacity.org
http://lists.megacity.org/mailman/listinfo/rfci-discuss


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]