DENIC and SOA numbers?

[Kevin Darcy]

 Mark.Andrews at nominum.com wrote:

>         DENIC have overstepped the mark here.

Was that meant to be a pun?

If they lose customers because of this, they have probably overstepped several
(Deutsch)marks here... :-)

>   All those counter
>         values were reasonable.
>
>                 refresh = 1h
>                 retry = 20m
>                 expire = 60d
>
>         There is a big difference between DE and CHRYSLER.COM.
>         DE is providing public infrastructure.  DE and its
>         subdomains don't have a common corporate relationship.
>         CHRYSLER.COM and subdomains do.

Corporate relationship, political relationship, geographical relationship, what
difference does it make? A delegation of authority is a delegation of authority,
regardless of whether the delegation was made for a "public" purpose or not. It's
not like we're talking attempted Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity here, that
would warrant extraterritorial intervention. Whether DENIC's rules are unduly
burdensome on .de domainholders, is something I'm sure German courts can figure
out on their own. I don't see that this is anything ICANN should have jurisdiction
over.

gTLD's are a different situation, in my mind. International oversight is needed
for those, otherwise registrars can evade the consequences of their actions simply
by playing national-sovereignty and/or -jurisdictional games.

>         If DENIC want to implement sanity checks then they should be
>         sanity checks not arbitary limits which is evidenced from
>         the ranges reported.

I agree that the values were reasonable and DENIC's regulations seem rather
arbitrary, at least the ones pertaining to SOA values.

Our only disagreement, I think, is over whether or not you, or I, or ICANN, has
any say in the matter. I see it as a matter between DENIC and the .de
domainholders it serves, to be decided ultimately by whatever legal authority
(presumably German courts) has jurisdiction to enforce agreements between the
parties.


- Kevin

> > They have every right to regulate the contents of their own subdomains, just
> > as
> > I have the right to regulate the contents of chrysler.com subdomains. That's
> > what
> > "delegation" means. If you don't like their TLD, pick another one.
> >
> >
> > - Kevin
> >
> > John Oliver wrote:
> >
> > > I just got this email, and am not too happy about it...
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: CSL Hostmaster [mailto:hostmaster at csl-gmbh.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:26 AM
> > > > To: Weikel, Duane
> > > > Subject: Re: [domreg at nic.de: Re: UPDATE: cyva.de]
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 01:03:34PM -0400, Weikel, Duane wrote:
> > > > >       We submitted a server change request for the domain name of
> > > > > 'cyva.de' on the online (internet) form and we have not had a respone f
> > rom
> > > > > you.  Please change the domain name of 'cyva.de' to be on the following
> > > > two
> > > > > servers:
> > > > >
> > > > > Server: ns.connectnet.com
> > > > > Address: 207.110.0.60
> > > > >
> > > > > Server: ns2.connectnet.com
> > > > > Address: 207.110.0.128
> > > >
> > > > DENIC requires a specific range of values for SOA record entries:
> > > >
> > > > ns.connectnet.com.: SOA value expire (5184000) does not fit in range [604
> > 800
> > > > ... 3600000].
> > > > ns.connectnet.com.: SOA value retry (1200) does not fit in range [1800 ..
> > .
> > > > 28800].
> > > > ns.connectnet.com.: SOA value refresh (3600) does not fit in range [10000
> > > > ... 86400].
> > > >
> > > > And DENIC doesn't allow all NS records for a domain in the same Class C
> > > > network
> > > > (to avoid a single point of failure).
> > > >
> > > > So unfortunatlely your update was rejected by DENIC.
> > >
> > > What business do they have telling me what values to use in my zone
> > > files?  I'm not aware of any precedent for this, nor any valid technical
> > > reason.  But, not being a guru, I want to ask before I roast them over a
> > > slow fire.  Am I correct in believing that this is something that ICANN
> > > wouldn't view very favorably?
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Oliver, System Administrator        http://www.allegiancetele.com
> > > ConnectNet, an Allegiance Telecom company    http://www.connectnet.com
> > > 6370 Lusk Blvd. Ste F103                                (858) 638-2020
> > > San Diego, CA. 92121                               FAX: (858) 623-1505
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc.
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at nominum.com