[RFCI-Discuss] zone contact

[Derek J. Balling]

On Aug 27, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Abuse Desk wrote:
> RFC954 didn't even mention "zone", so we're not sure what you're  
> driving
> at.

RFC954 was *really* clear about the content of what data had to be  
returned, though, whereas 1032 is much more vague.

> 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 .

But again. Is the "zone contact for abuse" a "zone contact"? Is the  
"zone contact for billing" a "zone contact"?  You could make a decent  
case for "yes".

> 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".

The RNAME data in DNS has *zero* to do with WHOIS. This has come up  
time and time again. SOAs and WHOIS are completely unrelated data- 
segments serving completely different purposes, to completely  
different audiences.

Summary:  As yet, I fail to see a compelling argument. I'm not  
"unconvinceable" or trying to dig my heels in, you simply haven't  
made your case well enough. (To be fair, though, given what you've  
got to work with for RFCs both in terms of what's contemporary to  
RFC1032, as well as the damage done by the IETF in modern-day RFCs,  
I'm not convinced you even *can* make a case...)

Cheers,
D



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2419 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20060828/ccddc8f6/smime.bin