February 2014 - gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

"zfa-passwords" vs CZDS
by Alexander Mayrhofer March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

We're currently looking into submitting our first ICANN reports for the new gTLDs we host. One of the fields in the ICANN reporting data is the "zfa-passwords" field, which is supposed to contain the number of active users for the Zone File Access service of the TLD. In the light of CZDS, we're assuming that this field can be left set to "0", because there are no direct zone file access users with the individual registry (and that ICANN gathers the number of users directly from CZDS). Can someone (preferrably from ICANN) confirm this? thanks, Alex

9 14

Interfacing into ICANN's monitoring service provider?
by Alexander Mayrhofer Feb. 28, 2014

Feb. 28, 2014

Hi, back during the Prague ICANN meeting, i asked whether it will be possible for new gTLD registries (or their technical backend operators) to get data out from ICANN's own SLA monitoring service. In addition to a Registry's own monitoring system, this would provide a valuable additional "outside view" to the operations team. In discussion with other backend operators, i got the impression that this was something many of the community were interested in. The answer back then (from Francisco, if i remember correctly) was that "this was something that ICANN will look into". Was there any outcome regarding this? thanks, Alex

1 0

TMCH downtime
by Gavin Brown Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

marksdb.org was down for a short period a little while ago - it's up now. The domain is delegated to ns1.sbp-isp.net and ns2.sbp-isp.net, with IPs 91.198.126.5 and 91.198.126.5 (why no IPv6?). Neither of these responded to DNS queries or pings. Given that those IPs are within the same /24 (hosted by EuroDNS, it seems) what's the betting that they're on the same box, which has crashed. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.

3 2

Re: [gtld-tech] URS concerns
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

Wasn't wildcarding expressly forbidden in the contract? I know it referred in that context to the TLD and not a domain name, but surely the same logic applies .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gavin Brown Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:07 PM To: Kal Feher; gtld-tech(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] URS concerns +1 on this. On 14/02/2014 05:21, Kal Feher wrote: > 3. I'd also suggest that the DNS server should not just wildcard all domain responses: > > dig @207.250.29.220 a icann.org +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, > ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;icann.org. IN A > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > icann.org. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > . 86400 IN NS ns. > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > ns. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 Also, using an IP address in an NS record. Very poor. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.

1 0

URS concerns
by Kal Feher Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

After the discussions we had on this list last year regarding URS procedures, I was curious to see what had been communicated to the URS provider and how they would implement their procedures. After looking at the implementation of the process (only from the outside so far), there appears to be a significant skills and awareness gap on the part of the URS provider. 1. Firstly, can someone please explain why they are providing IP addresses instead of nameservers? We _are_ in the domain name industry. It is also part of the technical procedures and just plain makes sense. 2. The zone configuration used by the URS provider appears to be a touch sloppy: dig ns facebok.pw @207.250.29.220 +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;facebok.pw. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA ns.yourhost.com. hostmaster.yourhost.com. 2008032701 28800 7200 604800 86400 It doesn't appear that the hosting provider "yourhost.com" has anything to do with this service. A quick google for "yourhost.com" does return a hit from "Starting and Building an Online Business for Dummies". I'd recommend a more appropriate configuration be used. 3. I'd also suggest that the DNS server should not just wildcard all domain responses: dig @207.250.29.220 a icann.org +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;icann.org. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: icann.org. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN NS ns. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 4. The DNS version appears to be creatively named: dig chaos txt version.bind @207.250.29.220 +short "get lost" 5. The website (and webserver), despite supporting ASP, appears to not do any programmatic evaluation of incoming requests: curl -H 'Host: icann.org' http://207.250.29.220/ <html> <head> <title>Suspended Site</title> </head> <body> <div style="text-align:center; background-color:#005FAD; color:white; font-size:40px;"> <p></p>This Site is Suspended </div> <br style="color:white;" /> <div style="background-color:#9AB3E5; font-size:30px;"> The Domain Name you've entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Procedure and Rules. </div> <br style="color:white;" /> <div style="background-color:#D7E1F4; font-size:25px;"> For more information relating to the URS, please visit: <a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs</a> </div> </body> </html> Kal Feher

2 1

Multi-TLD Registry Activity Report Counts
by Ben Levac Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

I have a question about the expected content of the following fields of the Registry Functions Activity Report, but it probably applies to other fields in the report: 05 - whois-43-queries 06 - web-whois-queries We are currently operating a shared registry system which hosts multiple TLDs. The WHOIS service is also shared and answers queries for all of the TLDs supported by the system. In a system with only one TLD, I assume that these counters would include all WHOIS requests including invalid ones. In a shared registry system however, what should these counters contain? 1 - Only successful domain and host queries where we could determine the TLD. 2 - A sum of all queries (all TLDs would be reported with the same count). 3 - Some other formula. I'm not sure if this was ever discussed when creating these report definitions. I can't find any documentation of this scenario. Your help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ben ________________________________ Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

1 0

Multi-TLD Registry Activity Report Counts
by Benoit Levac Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

I have a question about the expected content of the following fields of the Registry Functions Activity Report, but it probably applies to other fields in the report: 05 - whois-43-queries 06 - web-whois-queries We are currently operating a shared registry system which hosts multiple TLDs. The WHOIS service is also shared and answers queries for all of the TLDs supported by the system. In a system with only one TLD, I assume that these counters would include all WHOIS requests including invalid ones. In a shared registry system however, what should these counters contain? 1 - Only successful domain and host queries where we could determine the TLD. 2 - A sum of all queries (all TLDs would be reported with the same count). 3 - Some other formula. I'm not sure if this was ever discussed when creating these report definitions. I can't find any documentation of this scenario. Your help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ben -- Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

1 0