|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Change to .com/.net behavior
> > ... shouldn't they get to decide this for themselves? > > Returning NXDOMAIN when a domain does not exist is a basic > requirement. Failure to do so creates security problems. It is > reasonable to require your customers to fix known breakage that > creates security problems. that sounds pretty thin. i think you stretched your reasoning too far. > VeriSign has a public trust to provide accurate domain > information for the COM and NET zones. They have decided to put their > financial interest in obscuring this information ahead of their public > trust. i'm not sure how many people inside verisign, us-DoC, and icann agree that COM and NET are a public trust, or that verisign is just a caretaker. but, given that this is in some dispute, it again seems that your customers should decide for themselves which side of the dispute they weigh in on. > Microsoft, for example, specifically designed IE to behave in a > particular way when an unregistered domain was entered. Verisigns > wildcard record is explicitly intended to break this detection. The > wildcard only works if software does not treat it as if the domain > wasn't registered even though it is not. then microsoft should act. and if it matters to you then you should act. but this is not sufficient justification to warrant a demand by you of your customers that they install a patch (what if they don't run bind?) or that they configure delegation-only for particular tld's (which ones and why not others?) > Verisign has created a business out of fooling software through > failure to return a 'no such domain' indication when there is no such > domain, in breach of their public trust. As much as Verisign was > obligated not to do this, others are obligated not to propogate the > breakage. ISPs operate DNS servers for their customers just as > Verisign operates the COM and NET domains for the public. the obligations you're speaking of are much less clear than you're saying.
|