|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Change to .com/.net behavior
Did it occur to Verisign that perhaps this needed some external policy and technical review before you just went ahead and did this? Have you formally or informally asked ICANN, the US DOC, etc. for policy approval? If so, where and when? Did you consider that nonexistent domains returning an error was a feature in use by a wide number of security authentication mechanisms in email and other applications? Did you consider that major network operators might want to know about things like this beforehand? Have you notified any major network operators prior to this email to NANOG? Were the root servers apprised of this prior to it being implimented? [Paul et al, any comments on this one?] It is nice that Verisign at least documented what you are doing and why, however, the documentation is not ipso facto reasonable procedure and community approval. WiFrom what I can see here and today, you don't have community approval and don't appear to have followed anything vaguely like reasonable procedure in getting here. .com and .net are not your private playthings, and to be frank Verisign's position in control of the zones is dependent on it not being the sort of company to pull stunts of this nature without appropriate warning and discussion. -george william herbert [email protected]
|