number and distribution of registrations maybe - that comes down to number
and sizing of servers and geography/network diversity, the others are at best
operational concerns for the backend, not for the "frontend" DNS servers.
backend/frontend?
Taking RFC 2870, why wouldn't all of section 2 and most of section 3 and
section 4 be applicable to both gTLD and ccTLD servers (changing root zone
and IANA as appropriate)?
sure, you could take those sections as a starting point. But why
stop at TLDs? Why not make this applicable to -ALL- dns servers?
The problem we tried to tackle with RFC 2010, and apparently not
well considered by the authors of RFC 2870 is the difficulty of
segmenting system availabilty from operations. So to clarify,
are you talking about the server operations or are you talking
about availability of the zone? RFC 2870 muddies the waters here.
You seem to be leaning toward ensuring availablity.
RFC 2010 attempted to make the distinction. gTLD servers, today,
have an operational requirement to run on 64bit hardware. Few
if any ccTLDs have that as a requirement. The root servers may
not see that requirement until 2038 or so...
In any case, RFC 2870 is getting long in the tooth and
Mighty fine pharmaceuticals you got there. 
I'd settle for a requirement that dns servers have *basic* configuration
correct - I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
@ MX 0 lame.delegation.to.<hostname>.
* MX 0 lame.delegation.to.<hostname>.
randy
Not when the domains are just registered for cybersquatting (the other
problem). I have done something similar to what you suggest (but without
targetting an innocent thirdparty)... see http://www.chairtime.com/ as
an example.
The abuse and legal threats were amusing to start with, but they're getting
boring now - I'd much rather just pull the glue records and break those
domains hard (nothing legitimate has ever been on those nameservers)
Yo John!
There is an easy tool I use to fix that. Just put up a zone file for
them on your NS that points their www to www.playboy.com. This gets
action fast!
I think pointing it to www.poopsex.com would be far more entertaining.
Charles