[consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation Information in WHOIS

[Brian Dickson]

Member Services wrote:
> As a result, ARIN would like to solicit input on how reverse delegation 
> information should be displayed on network blocks within WHOIS. 
> Currently, only the network block information is displayed and not any 
> actual delegations within in-addr.arpa. For example, a /19 has 32 actual 
> delegations. If one particular delegation (e.g. a /24) is marked as 
> being lame out of a larger block (e.g. a /19), two issues arise:
>
> 1) Is it necessary to indicate which delegations are lame within the 
> network block within WHOIS?
> 2) If yes, how should this information be displayed in WHOIS?
>   
1) Yes, with the specific lameness/server specified, per zone. For 
example, if one single /24 out of a /19 had a lame delegation, the 
specific zone would need to be identified, and the server + lameness 
state for that server, listed for all servers serving the zone.

2) The information should be done via child zones/blocks returned on a 
lookup for the block in question.

Something along the lines of:

[normal whois response for the block]
[including NetHandle: foo]

[whois identifier for child block]
[including Parent: foo]
NameServer: <good nameserver>
NameServer-Lame: <bad nameserver> <when it went lame>
Delegation-Withdrawn: <date> (if all name servers are lame)

The above children would only need to be returned for specific zones 
that had lame servers, but ideally would also be queryable directly even 
if no servers are lame.
This queryability would permit tracking of intermittent lameness, by 
third parties doing whois, since the record would be visible across 
lame/not-lame/lame transition events.

Brian Dickson