[rpd] Lame delegation in AFRINIC WHOIS database

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 26 Oct 2016, at 9:24, Amreesh Phokeer wrote:

> Dear Community,

hi amreesh,

> Questions to the community:
> 1. Should AFRINIC implement operational checks that are run 
> periodically and members are informed about the status of their domain 
> objects.

yes.  you don’t need policy to do this.


> After X reminders, if domain object still contain lame NS records, 
> domain object are removed.

this bit is trickier :-)

i have some questions: do you have data on what percentage of domain 
objects are entered by users, vs. hostmasters, or, are enforced through 
a registration system (i confess i haven’t done this in a while!)
it’s rational to expect that not everyone has the same degree of 
concern over working rdns (reverse dns).  those that don’t want it, 
can simply not register any domain objects (at their own risk), and, 
life goes on…
so, my question above, is really asking if you have a(ny) registration 
system that’s enforcing domain object creation;  which subsequently 
just simply doesn’t get actioned by the end user?

additionally, it wasn’t clear to me, from a quick read of the article:
* did you test v4 and v6 (transport, not zone type) separately
* did you test tcp and udp separately
* did you test (at least your failure set) from at least one other 
different location


> 2. Should the AFRINIC community enforce lame delegation removal 
> through a policy.

i’d support this, and i’d be willing to help write text, and test 
criteria, if needed.

—n.