North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape
On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:01:29 -0500, Karl wrote: >On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 12:48:23AM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote: >> On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote: >> >> >Karl, >> >I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS. >> >> If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in >> the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a >> "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply >> stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or >> "Premaddona posturing"... >> >> Take care, >> Ron > >Yep, stable, business-grade service. > >On recursion-enabled servers. > >Yep. > >BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it >is) is that a bunch of people were cheating. > >You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable, >business grade service*, defined as: > >1) Someone answers your phone. >2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state. >3) You have real nameservers on real circuits. >4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD. >5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD > delegation. > >Well, blow me down. Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business >grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria. > >Oh, and we're not assessing taxes. Still. > >Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the >truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now >putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less >being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs. <yawn> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|