Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to help vs "help" maintain the list - _psl txt record DNS validation crucial #1439

Open
dnsguru opened this issue Sep 28, 2021 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
❌FAIL - DNS VALIDATION Unable to confirm _PSL TXT = This PR # (also see #1439) Volunteer Opportunity Tasks we're voluntelling you what would help us.

Comments

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Sep 28, 2021

Hello, gratefully, to those that review the list and submit PR as updates to listings that they are not the admin/registry/manager of. These help the volunteers keep up the freshness of the PSL, and it is absolutely and always appreciated.

That said, there is a validation step used for ensuring that the NIC or domain owner is in the loop and supports the change, to ensure these are intentional and match their desired namespace operation. We do this by requiring that a _psl txt record be added on affected zones or domains that matches the PR # - and this helps as connection between the PR and the DNS record show administration proof.

When submitting a PR, understand that we as the PSL maintainers are volunteers and are not resourced to chase up the NIC or adminstrators of domains; while there are some of us who participate in ICANN or who have the opportunity to make presentations inside the TLD registry community and regional ccTLD events to help with awareness of the PSL, and we describe what it is and isn't and all of the benefits to maintaining entries for a ccTLD or gTLD, it is ultimately they the registries who must be involved in at very least approving / showing validation in the DNS.

When submitting a request for a TLD or domain name that you are a third party to, please include within your efforts the outreach to the party that will be affected by the PR and a request to review the change that you've proposed and for them to add the _psl txt leaf into the affected zones so that the change can be approved and merged.

Otherwise, the effort of the submission often sits without update or change, until we ultimately may close it due to absense of response from the administrator or ability to verify it. These circumastances are bad from our perspective, as we are far too familiar with the loss of some volunteer time to 'disposible effort' that comes from things like #1245 with subsequent rollbacks or where the requestor was 'experimenting'.

So please do the additional outreach and contact the respective domain owner or admins. And assume this has been tried previously. No, we do not have a contact list to share, we use the IANA.org db listed contacts for ccTLDs just like anyone.

Thank you to community members and submitters who are taking their time to help offload the burden from us, and hopefully this issue identifies how to ensure that effort is most effective.

Examples: #1437 #1436 #1435 #1432 #1213 #1021 #1032 #1182

@dnsguru dnsguru added the ❌FAIL - DNS VALIDATION Unable to confirm _PSL TXT = This PR # (also see #1439) label Sep 28, 2021
@dnsguru dnsguru self-assigned this Sep 28, 2021
@dnsguru dnsguru linked a pull request Sep 29, 2021 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@dnsguru dnsguru removed a link to a pull request Sep 29, 2021
10 tasks
@dnsguru dnsguru linked a pull request Sep 29, 2021 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@dnsguru dnsguru removed a link to a pull request Sep 29, 2021
10 tasks
@dnsguru dnsguru linked a pull request Sep 29, 2021 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@dnsguru dnsguru removed a link to a pull request Sep 29, 2021
10 tasks
@sleevi
Copy link
Contributor

sleevi commented Oct 1, 2021

@dnsguru Beyond the validation side, this swath of PRs seems to be net-negative (in the bloaty sense). Do you have any concerns with me closing these all as WontFix?

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member Author

dnsguru commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@sleevi
Copy link
Contributor

sleevi commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member Author

dnsguru commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@sleevi
Copy link
Contributor

sleevi commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member Author

dnsguru commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@sleevi
Copy link
Contributor

sleevi commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member Author

dnsguru commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@sleevi
Copy link
Contributor

sleevi commented Oct 2, 2021 via email

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member Author

dnsguru commented Oct 19, 2021

I thought your goal was to help the ccTLDs make the same request, which may be unnecessary or suboptimal.

Nope + Agree.

Meanwhile, the presentation to the CENTR.org technical operations group went well, and resulted in #1456 update directly from the NIC, which is precisely what we'd want to have happen.

I do not want to discourage 3rd party inputs, and am loathe to undo all the work that @brian-peter-dickson made towards updating the legacy entries in the ccTLD space, but perhaps closing them and re-opening them upon NIC inputs would help shorten our open PR queue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
❌FAIL - DNS VALIDATION Unable to confirm _PSL TXT = This PR # (also see #1439) Volunteer Opportunity Tasks we're voluntelling you what would help us.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants