North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verisign Responds
> > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Dave Stewart wrote: > > > > > > Courts are likely to support the position that Verisign has control of .net > > > > > > and .com and can do pretty much anything they want with it. > > > > > ISC has made root-delegation-only the default behaviour in the new bind, > > > > > how about drafting up an RFC making it an absolute default requirement for > > > > > all DNS? > > > > That would be making a fundamental change to the DNS > > > > to make wildcards illegal anywhere. Is that what you > > > > want? > > > no it wouldnt. it would ust make wildcards illegal in top level domains, > > > not subdomains. > > really? and how would that work? (read be enforced...) > > Well yes thats part of the problem. It looks like verisign doesnt care > what anyone (ICANN, IAB, operators) thinks. But if we can mandate via RFC > it for dns software (servers, resolvers) etc. Then we go a ways to > removing verisign from the equation. Verisign can do what they like, > everyone will just ignore their hijacking. > lets try this again... why should a valid DNS protocol element be made illegal in some parts of the tree and not others? if its bad one place, why is it ok other places? --bill
|