From info at arin.net  Tue Oct  9 11:15:53 2007
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:15:53 -0400
Subject: [consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation
 Information in WHOIS
Message-ID: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>

ARIN received a suggestion (2007.29) "that ARIN implement 
lame-delegation policy on a per-zone basis and not the per-network basis 
as described in the message. I am not making the request to "do" it, but 
to open this up for discussion as this change means that ARIN would have 
to do per-zone management."

The complete suggestion can be viewed at: 
http://www.arin.net/acsp/suggestions/2007-29.html

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?

Discussion on this list will close at noon EDT 23 October 2007. A poll 
on the topic will be conducted in early November. Only subscribers on 
the consult at arin.net list when the poll opens will be eligible to 
participate. Poll results will be publicly available and will be used by 
the ARIN President to help determine what course of action, if any, ARIN 
should take regarding the subject.

The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process documentation is available 
at: http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html

We welcome community-wide participation.  Please address any process 
questions to info at arin.net.

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From briand at ca.afilias.info  Tue Oct  9 12:08:51 2007
From: briand at ca.afilias.info (Brian Dickson)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:08:51 -0400
Subject: [consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation
 Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
References: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
Message-ID: <470BA793.2020003@ca.afilias.info>

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



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Oct  9 13:09:21 2007
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:09:21 -0400
Subject: [consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation
	Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
References: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20071009170920.GA71307@ussenterprise.ufp.org>


I believe every individual delegation should be checked; responsible
parties notified, and lame delegations pulled on a zone by zone
basis if there is no response.

> 1) Is it necessary to indicate which delegations are lame within the 
> network block within WHOIS?

I don't believe it's necessary to publish them to the world.  There
must be some mechanism for the responsible party to be able to query
which zones are in the lame state from ARIN's perspective, and right
now whois is the only option.

I'd really like to see ARIN implement a http://my.arin.net/ style
portal where ARIN's members could do things like pay their bill via
a credit card, track the status of new applications.  Fill out all
of the current e-mail forms as web forms.  If such a thing existed
it would be easy to put the zone by zone report on the web site and
there would be no need to pollute things like whois with that data.

> 2) If yes, how should this information be displayed in WHOIS?

If it has to be in whois, then the specifics should be in some sort
of subquery, either for the specific /24 (or /16), or with some
query option.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz  Fri Oct 12 15:14:35 2007
From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:14:35 -0400
Subject: [consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation
 Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
References: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net>
Message-ID: <a06240803c335766fbe9e@[192.168.1.100]>

At 11:15 -0400 10/9/07, Member Services wrote:

>The complete suggestion can be viewed at:
>http://www.arin.net/acsp/suggestions/2007-29.html
>
...
22>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?

As the suggester, I'm for per zone enforcement.  To answer the two 
issue questions:

1) No.
2) See #1 ;)

I don't think that the goal is punishment or labeling because this 
might have other repercussions (esp. if space is returned and 
reused).  The goal is to make the DNS work better.  So, once efforts 
to get the situation fixed have been unsuccessful,  all that is 
needed is to drop the offending NS RRs from the zone file.

This is a DNS issue, not really a registry issue.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.


From weiler at tislabs.com  Thu Oct 18 19:11:21 2007
From: weiler at tislabs.com (Sam Weiler)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [consult] [arin-announce] Call for Community Consultation -
 Lame Delegation Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <470B9F08.9090107@arin.net>
References: <470B9F08.9090107@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181906570.18595@mint.samweiler.com>

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Member Services wrote:

> 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?

I concur with Leo and Ed: "no".  It is important to let the registrant 
know about the problems, including the per-zone detail, but that can 
be done via email or some other method.  And, while not necessary to 
use WHOIS, displaying the detailed data in WHOIS is certainly an 
option.

-- Sam


From sleibrand at internap.com  Thu Oct 18 20:31:08 2007
From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:31:08 -0600
Subject: [consult] [arin-announce] Call for Community Consultation -
 Lame Delegation Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181906570.18595@mint.samweiler.com>
References: <470B9F08.9090107@arin.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181906570.18595@mint.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <4717FACC.6060908@internap.com>

I was going to wait for the poll rather than do a <me too>, but since 
we're being asked for our input now:

What is necessary here is that lame delegations disappear from the DNS, 
(i.e. that I get a proper NXDOMAIN rather than a timeout).  That means 
working with the registrant, and if that fails, pulling the delegation 
for the lame subdomain from the DNS.  In my opinion it does not require 
publicizing the problem via WHOIS or any other method.

-Scott

Sam Weiler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Member Services wrote:
>
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> I concur with Leo and Ed: "no".  It is important to let the registrant 
> know about the problems, including the per-zone detail, but that can 
> be done via email or some other method.  And, while not necessary to 
> use WHOIS, displaying the detailed data in WHOIS is certainly an 
> option.
>
> -- Sam
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>   


From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz  Fri Oct 19 09:09:56 2007
From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:09:56 -0600
Subject: [consult] Call for Community Consultation - Lame Delegation
 Information in WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <a06240803c335766fbe9e@[192.168.1.100]>
References: <470B9B29.30707@arin.net> <a06240803c335766fbe9e@[192.168.1.100]>
Message-ID: <a06240800c33e5a1a271f@[192.35.167.157]>

After some more chattering, I feel compelled to change an opinion of mine.

On the matter of whether or not the lame delegation ought to appear 
in WhoIs, I still don't like to label the offender with a scarlet L 
[0] but there might be an operational reason to do so.

Say one /24 NS set is pulled from a /20.  A "relying operator" may 
wonder why the /24 is missing and might conclude that it is an ARIN 
omission.  If a notice in the WhoIs exists, that might reduce the 
time ARIN staff has to spend fielding calls for such a situation. 
(We have a similar situation, we deployed an IPv6-only name server 
for a TLD and now some people are asking if the A record fell out of 
our zone - so I had to go write a "prepared statement" for the 
helpdesk to use.  Man I *hate* having to do actual "work!")

So, if at the staff's discretion, listing lame entries in the WhoIs 
will/is thought to/ reduce the number of false-positive complaint 
calls or at least the time spent on the calls that do arrive, I would 
agree to listing the lame entries.  I still would prefer an 
alternative notification process - but being at a loss to suggest 
something that is a better idea, I'll leave that up to staff 
discretion and imagination. ;)  (Such as "www.arin.net/Lamers")

Obscure literary references:
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_Letter


At 15:14 -0400 10/12/07, Edward Lewis wrote:
>At 11:15 -0400 10/9/07, Member Services wrote:
>
>>The complete suggestion can be viewed at:
>>http://www.arin.net/acsp/suggestions/2007-29.html
>>
>...
>22>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?
>
>As the suggester, I'm for per zone enforcement.  To answer the two
>issue questions:
>
>1) No.
>2) See #1 ;)
>
>I don't think that the goal is punishment or labeling because this
>might have other repercussions (esp. if space is returned and
>reused).  The goal is to make the DNS work better.  So, once efforts
>to get the situation fixed have been unsuccessful,  all that is
>needed is to drop the offending NS RRs from the zone file.
>
>This is a DNS issue, not really a registry issue.
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
>NeuStar
>
>Think glocally.  Act confused.
>_______________________________________________
>ARIN-Consult
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>ARIN Consult Mailing
>List (consult at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/consult Please contact the 
>ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.


From info at arin.net  Wed Oct 24 10:39:02 2007
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:39:02 -0400
Subject: [consult] Consultation Regarding "Lame Delegation Information in
 WHOIS" Now Closed
Message-ID: <471F5906.8010103@arin.net>

ARIN thanks the community for its input regarding the suggestion that 
ARIN implement lame-delegation policy on a per-zone basis and not the 
per-network basis.

Given the limited feedback provided on the list, a subsequent polling 
will not be conducted. ARIN staff will review all input and will report 
back to the community next week with its intended course of action.

The archives of this discussion are available at:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/consult/

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)