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

Potentially Outdated Entries in ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section #2265

Open
groundcat opened this issue Nov 17, 2024 · 22 comments
Open

Potentially Outdated Entries in ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section #2265

groundcat opened this issue Nov 17, 2024 · 22 comments
Labels
🚩ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section PR changes in the ICANN/IANA section typically reserved for TLDs.

Comments

@groundcat
Copy link
Contributor

groundcat commented Nov 17, 2024

Edit (2024-12-10): Requesting CZDS access to audit PSL gTLD entries against current zone files for this task. Registry operators: this issue confirms my PSL volunteer status. (CZDS request submitted December 10, 2024 originated from upenn.edu address)


I have noticed that the community has been working on fixing outdated domains in the ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) section. It might be helpful to take a more systematic approach to review all potentially outdated entries in this section. That said, validating these domains and reaching out to the TLD registries will likely require additional volunteer support.

Below is a list of ICANN section entries currently returning NXDOMAIN errors. This could suggest that the suffix has been decommissioned, but being on this list does not automatically mean a domain should be removed. Domains should only be removed after their status is directly confirmed by the respective TLD operator.

The goal of this list is to encourage volunteers to help verify whether these domains are still active—whether they are available for registration as second-level domains (SLDs), not available for registration but still in use, or reserved for internal networking or other specific purposes. Only after direct confirmation with the relevant registry should any domains be removed.

ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section Domains Returning NXDOMAIN Error

https://gist.github.com/groundcat/cff0e30dd90e17ccc4a47b42a25e5ddc

Possibly Affected ccTLDs

Possibly Affected gTLDs

TBD

Possible Approach

What I usually do is start from the IANA page at https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db since it is the authoritative source. From there, I note down the administrative and technical contact emails listed. That said, I have noticed these addresses might not always be closely monitored by the operators, probably because they are public and more likely to get spammed.

To work around this, I check the registry's website directly, using the URL provided on the IANA page. I avoid relying on third-party sources like Google or Wikipedia to find the registry’s site, as those might lead to non-authoritative or outdated information. On the registry's website, I look for their contact form or email address and send my inquiry there, hoping for a response.

It is also worth noting that having decommissioned domains do not necessarily mean only removals are needed. There is a good chance that TLD operators are introducing new suffixes or replacing old ones with updated versions. When contacting registries, it might be a good idea to ask for a comprehensive list of all suffixes they currently manage. So, we can aim to remove outdated entries and add any new ones in one go, if applicable.

Of course, if anyone has a more effective or efficient way to handle this, I would love to hear about it!

If trusted community volunteers, like @wdhdev, could be granted triage permissions (as mentioned in #2231), it would be really helpful. This way, we could update the list above as we progress, which would make the process much more efficient.

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 17, 2024

.au

info.au is mentioned in this list as returning NXDOMAIN. info.au was decommissioned quite a while ago and is completely inactive with no sites under it to my knowledge. The domain itself also returns an inactive status when looking up the domain via WHOIS. I believe this domain is reserved by auDA.

However just to be sure I have emailed auDA, requesting them to validate all their entries on the PSL, as well as to confirm whether specific domains should remain excluded (e.g. nsw.gov.au). (I emailed them just before you opened this issue.)

.ci

ci - Email inquiry sent on 2024-11-17 by @groundcat

A few weeks ago I confirmed all the .ci entries with the .ci registry, they shouldn't be affected: #2198 (comment)


@groundcat I believe some of these TLDs you have mentioned are simply reserved for future use and do not exist yet. I would imagine this is the case for most of the .us and potentially .jp entries that are listed here.

@mozfreddyb
Copy link
Contributor

@dnsguru Would be really interested to hear your take on this. I think we should make a wider decision here before we move on in the individual country codes.

Personally, I can see the advantage of a slim list that doesn't contain second level entities like .net.is, which the registrar says is reserved for possible future use but will not be registerable at this point and has never been.

But before agreeing to anything, I would also like to learn more why these reserved second levels made it to the list in the first place. Maybe you have some background here?

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 18, 2024

My question is similar, how did you congregate all these nested TLDs in the first place?

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 19, 2024

@groundcat I've sent an email to the .tj and .tm registries (via IANA contacts) and am awaiting responses.

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 19, 2024

@groundcat #2268 opened for .tm

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 19, 2024

@groundcat I've sent emails to .tr, .tt, .tw.

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 19, 2024

@groundcat Received a response from the .tt registry, opened #2272.

@simon-friedberger
Copy link
Contributor

@wdhdev @groundcat Please do ask the registrars to publish the list on their site instead of just telling us. It makes sense anyway since their customers may want to know.

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 19, 2024

@simon-friedberger May I get your email address to forward these emails to? You don't have one listed on your GitHub profile.

@simon-friedberger
Copy link
Contributor

Of course! At mozilla.com I am just simon or sfriedberger!

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Nov 20, 2024

@dnsguru Would be really interested to hear your take on this. I think we should make a wider decision here before we move on in the individual country codes.

Personally, I can see the advantage of a slim list that doesn't contain second level entities like .net.is, which the registrar says is reserved for possible future use but will not be registerable at this point and has never been.

But before agreeing to anything, I would also like to learn more why these reserved second levels made it to the list in the first place. Maybe you have some background here?

There are a lot of entries that got initally set up by Joe and/or others from wikipedia entries or other 3p sources at genesis, or in other cases were accurate at the time they were added.

In the 14 years hence some ccTLDs move operators, change policies, or have different personnel / plans and have left their entries alone.

The approach was to inform about the list and let ccTLDs have agency to review and update their entries.

I think we had a missed opportunity on this audit... I really wish that the current sweep had been called to my attention as a planned initiative, as I was in ISTANBUL for the ICANN meeting and could have addressed the ccTLD tech day audience about the effort.

Still, many ccTLD do not participate in ICANN.

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Nov 20, 2024

@wdhdev @groundcat Please do ask the registrars to publish the list on their site instead of just telling us. It makes sense anyway since their customers may want to know.

Just a precision nit... TLDs are "Registries" not "registrars"

Very common confusion publicly, but it is important to project that the PSL volunteers are sophisticated and know the difference when speaking w TLDs

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Nov 20, 2024

@simon-friedberger May I get your email address to forward these emails to? You don't have one listed on your GitHub profile.

Add [email protected] to those forwards please

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 21, 2024

@groundcat Emails sent to .jp and .us registries respectively.

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Nov 21, 2024

@groundcat Emails sent to .jp and .us registries respectively.

These two have some intricate subspaces defined, which we have historically left in place so that we did not break any civic/edu etc legacy entries.

Wtihin the US namespace, RFC 1386 and later RFC 1480 defined them, and what later manifested was a diverse subdelegation structure for the various subdelegations - many of which still exist to this day, but are very difficult to track down the admins of.

The .US TLD is operated differently since those RFCs and subsequent manifistation, but the descending subspace(s) remain so as to not break legacy email/web other sites and services that may depend upon their predictable status quo.

I interacted with JPRS about 10 years ago and they reviewed and were satisfied with their entries, as they similarly have a large number of prefectures that have subdelegated spaces and some intricate entries in the PSL to match.

These two particular namespaces are something I would recommend not fiddling with unless we receive some direction to do so from the respectivel registries.

-J

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Nov 21, 2024

Yeah, I'm aware of their complex structure. I have just contacted them to see if there is anything worth adding or removing, I won't touch those entries unless the registries request it.

@groundcat
Copy link
Contributor Author

.JP

I inquired with JPRS (the .JP registry) on November 19, 2024, in Japanese, and they confirmed that our current PSL enters are up to date. They also indicated that since regional JP domain names are no longer accepting new registrations, any registered domain names listed under FQDNs in the PSL that are confirmed to have been fully discontinued will be removed from the PSL.


                              株式会社日本レジストリサービス
                                            お客様サポート係

お問い合わせいただきましてありがとうございます。

  1. 運営状況:上記に列挙したドメインは現在も活発に運営されており、登録可能でしょうか。

列挙されている「aisai.aichi.jp」などは「市区町村名の予約ドメイン名」です。
「市区町村名の予約ドメイン名」は原則、登録できません。
(当該市区町村に限り登録を承認する場合があります)

[ご参考]
都道府県型JPドメイン名における予約ドメイン名リスト(市区町村名)
https://jprs.jp/doc/rule/prefecturejp-reserved-geo.html

  1. 公共サフィックスリストへの含有:これらのドメインは公共サフィックスリスト(Public Suffix List,
    PSL)に引き続き含めるべきでしょうか。削除が必要な場合、その理由を教えてください。

「*.aichi.jp」の形式のドメイン名は、都道府県型JPドメイン名として登録可能
な文字列があるため、PSLに「aichi.jp」などは引き続き含める必要があります。

[ご参考]
都道府県型JPドメイン名登録等に関する技術細則
https://jprs.jp/doc/rule/saisoku-1-prefecturejp.html
2.都道府県型JPドメイン名の構成

また、「*.aisai.aichi.jp」の形式のドメイン名は地域型JPドメイン名の「一般
地域型ドメイン名」「地方公共団体ドメイン名」として登録されている文字列が
あるため、PSLに「aisai.aichi.jp」などは引き続き含める必要があります。

[参考]
属性型(組織種別型)・地域型JPドメイン名登録等に関する技術細則
https://jprs.jp/doc/rule/saisoku-1.html
2.2.1 一般地域型ドメイン名
2.2.2 地方公共団体ドメイン名

なお、地域型JPドメイン名は新規登録の受付を終了しているため、PSLに記載
しているFQDNに属する登録済のドメイン名について、全て廃止されたことが
確認できたものはPSLから削除します。

  1. 現在のサフィックスリスト:貴社が運営するすべての二級ドメインの最新リストをご提供いただけますでしょうか。

現在PSLで公開している内容が最新リストですので、PSLをご参照ください。

何かございましたらお手数ですが、以下の窓口までお問い合わせください。

J┃P┃R┃S┃--------------------------------------------------------
━┛━┛━┛━┛
株式会社日本レジストリサービス https://jprs.jp/
https://日本レジストリサービス.jp/
お客様サポート係
営業時間 9:00-18:00
(土日祝祭日・法律に定める休日及び12月29日-1月3日は除く)
メールでのご質問 … [email protected]
お電話でのご質問 … 03-5215-8457
よくあるお問い合わせ … https://jprs.jp/faq/

@dnsguru dnsguru added the 🚩ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section PR changes in the ICANN/IANA section typically reserved for TLDs. label Nov 30, 2024
@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Nov 30, 2024

Just wanted to comment and compliment this activity and the work of @groundcat and @wdhdev on the progress and express gratitude for the investment of time on working these.

@dnsguru
Copy link
Member

dnsguru commented Dec 9, 2024

It appears that the feedback on #2311 rollback would be to reduce the .pw section to just .pw and .gov.pw based upon the IM dialog I had with the registry.pw folks today.

@groundcat
Copy link
Contributor Author

It appears that the feedback on #2311 rollback would be to reduce the .pw section to just .pw and .gov.pw based upon the IM dialog I had with the registry.pw folks today.

Thank you @dnsguru ! Opened #2314

@wdhdev wdhdev mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2024
@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Dec 9, 2024

@groundcat I now have access to the .us zone file through GoDaddy Registry. At this point in time I have updated the main entries in #2316, geographic names haven't been modified yet.

Also, for .am it might be worth adding a comment in the entry that it was confirmed at the date you provided in the issue description.

@wdhdev
Copy link
Contributor

wdhdev commented Dec 11, 2024

@groundcat .am - #2330


I'm curious, what zone files did you request access to through CZDS? Most gTLDs do not have any 2LDs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🚩ICANN (IANA/ICP-3) Section PR changes in the ICANN/IANA section typically reserved for TLDs.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants