In message <1C69BAB0-37FC-48EF-A093-ED925C5D66F7@rfc1035.com>, at 09:42:18 on Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> writes

It might be true that the majority of registrants just stick with whatever DNS is offered by their registrar but not all of them do that.

Clueful ones certainly don't.

For some value of "clueful". I expect the majority of registrants don't worry very much about continuity of service, nor would they even notice if their website was offline as a result (and the number who use something where an interruption might be more noticeable, like domain-based email rather than various cloud and connectivity-ISP-based email, must be an even smaller minority). Their "clue" is more of a financial sort, where they are happy to pay a few tens of dollars a year for the less resilient service, compared to something much more expensive for the greater resilience. That's partly why I said, earlier, that "Best practice is supposed to be that they should be separated, although many commercial hosting companies appear not to." Then there's the issue of hosting organisations who apparently put two Name Servers in the same /24 [for our non-technical readers that's two servers on the same branch-of-a-network-with-254-usable-IP-addresses, previously called a Class C; something that typically has no connectivity redundancy, even if such a design could cope with one of the two servers failing]. This is all a subset of a general theory which states that "when Internet users became so numerous that someone gave up trying to publish an annual list of them all in a paperback book, lots of stuff changed". {Was it 1994 - I have that book, bought in 1995... http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Internet-White-Pages-1994/dp/1568843003 } The best thing we as a WG can do is try to acknowledge that such changes *have* happened, that we have 2 Billion users, and when we are giving advice to Governments and Regulators it should be appropriate for a World with 2 billion users, not the 100 thousand trusted users that many clearly wish it still was. That boat sailed in 1995. -- Roland Perry

In message <F92C6547-D30D-438C-9A07-808C796A86BA@rfc1035.com>, at 15:54:35 on Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> writes

Roland, you seem to be going off at a tangent. If you want to continue a discussion of what a "clueful" DNS user or robust DNS service means please take it to the DNS Working Group.

There's no need, the extra resilience that redundant NS brings to the table is well understood. The question remains, however, as to whether individual website owners are expected to understand the hosting products to that degree of technical detail, or should they expect the services they are buying (from people who ought to be familiar with Best Practice) to be delivered to a reasonable standard. In other words, isn't it the industry who should be clueful, on the users' behalf? Although not immediately applicable to this document, it is however a question for governments and regulators with their "consumer protection" hats on.

In the context of the document we're discussing here -- DNS blocking for government and regulatory people -- the point that should be made is that DNS service for some domain does not necessarily rest with a single entity.

A simple tool for extracting this information from the DNS would be quite helpful for non-technical readers. -- Roland Perry

In message <64D1E31C-E56C-4ECE-8198-EE607AC216E9@rfc1035.com>, at 12:51:14 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> writes

For the general public, I'd expect most governments and regulators would look to market forces to solve the issues around DNS robustness, just like they tend to rely on market forces to deal with the good and bad ISPs/hosting companies/registrars/etc. Some punters will pay a premium to get a better, more robust service. Others won't.

I agree that many governments and regulators don't currently address the issue of deficient service from telecoms providers. The first step is for there to be an acknowledgement that such a thing as deficient service exists (for example is a provision of one non-redundant NS in any sense "fit for purpose", let alone "complying with industry best practice"). If we can agree (here on this list) that there are many telecoms providers who either lack clue because they've cut costs by employing clueless staff, or have taken a commercial decision to deliver a clueless service, then that's one small step on our long journey. I imagine that such deficiencies are as frustrating to conscientious service providers as they are to the public, as it tends to create a "race to the bottom". -- Roland Perry