North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: How long much advanced notice do ISPs need to deploy IPv6?

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Wed Oct 22 14:59:54 2003


--On Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:49:39 PM -0500 Chris Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

At 12:26 PM 10/22/2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

The "RIGHT" way, absent a clear and compelling need to do it is DON'T.

I will now clarify...

In order to make such a change, the following criteria should be required
prior to consideration:

        1.      There must be a clear and compelling reason for the
        change. Verisign's financial gain isn't a clear and compelling
                reason for the entire internet.  Providing better
                directory
assistance
                an innovative features might be, but...

Yes, but one point to consider on this:  What happens to the wildcard in
the event that the Registry is given to another party to manage when/if
the current Verisign contract is terminated?


These are points specific to sitefinder which I believe either A: Further
point to the lack of clear and compelling, or, B: should be considered after
deciding whether such a change _SHOULD_ even be considered.  I was proposing
generic criteria by which it could be determined whether ANY such change
should be made on the internet, not just DNS wildcards or sitefinder.


Will the wildcard be left in place pointing to sitefinder?   Will the
new registry create another version of sitefinder?  Will the users
who have become used to seeing sitefinder now have to revert to
seeing "Host Not Found" messages again?
These are operational issues to be addressed in the subsequent implementation
plan I discussed below.

        2.      There must be no alternative method for implementing the
                "clear and compelling" capability or service which could
                be implemented without such radical or abrupt change.

As was asked during the meeting, if the intent is to serve misdirected
HTTP clients, why not simply create a browswer plug-in?  This would
perpetuate beyond a registry transfer, and work in all TLDs, not just
the ones that Verisign happens to operate the registry for.


Right.  This is why I don't believe that Sitefinder meets this generic test
and SHOULD NOT be considered for implementation.  The rest of my message
said that sitefinder definitely did not meet test 2, or did you not read
that far?

Owen

Attachment: pgp00031.pgp
Description: PGP signature