[RFCI-Discuss] zone contact

[Abuse Desk]

Derek J. Balling wrote:
> The problem is that "zone contact" ... in RFC1032, is not adequately
> defined as to its scope. In other words, 1032 says "zone contact"
> even though (now that 954 is gone) there's nothing which defines
> "what a zone contact is, and what that data contains".
>
> So, given this orphaned language, you have to interpret it in the
> fashion which is most beneficial to the domain-holder (just as how,
> when a law is ambiguous, it is supposed to be interpreted in a
> fashion most beneficial to the defendant). To this end, any "contact
> info" really meets the ambiguous definition of a "zone contact". It
> might be the "zone's technical contact" or the "zone's abuse
> contact", or even the "zone's billing contact" in reality, but given
> what we have to work with, verbiage-wise, there's not a lot of room
> to complain.

RFC954 didn't even mention "zone", so we're not sure what you're driving
at.  in any case, how about working with the language in the next RFC,
RFC1033 "DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS OPERATIONS GUIDE" at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1033.txt , specifically "<person> is a
mailbox for the person responsible for the zone" near the bottom of Page
5 (the same field as RNAME in RFC1032) at
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=1033#page-5 .
Alternatively, how about working with the language in the second of the
following pair of RFCs, [the second part of] Internet Standard 13 and
RFC1035 "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION" at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt , specifically "the mailbox of
the person responsible for this zone" as a part of the explanation of
the RNAME field in the SOA RDATA format in Section 3.3.13 on Page 19 at
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=1035#section-3.3.13 .
We've seen that field referred to elsewhere as "SOA contact" and
"responsible party".

-- 
Thanks and Best Regards,

Abuse Desk
DeSpam.Us