[36590] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MultiBind Testers Wanted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward S. Marshall)
Wed Apr 11 02:38:23 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:05:55 -0500
From: "Edward S. Marshall" <esm@logic.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010410210555.A32205@labyrinth.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200104102133.OAA83970@redpaul.mfnx.net>; from vixie@mfnx.net on Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:33:35PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Apr 10, 2001 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> On Apr 05, 2001 at 16:23:26 PDT, John Palmer wrote:
> > American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new =
> > version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root =
> > networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one =
> > root.cache file.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm failing to see the need for this for a DNS
administrator with 0.5 clues (hint: host your own root zone, and delegate
wherever you please).
I wasn't even going to respond to his original post until you said:
> However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement
> of ISC's rights to the BIND product name.
*sigh* Shall we draw the comparisons to Tatu Ylonen now, or after you've
officially drawn the legal line in the sand with "American Webmasters"?
(Assuming, of course, that you haven't already.)
This being an operational list, wouldn't it have been possible to avoid
the veiled legal threats and stuck to an *operational* reason why we should
avoid their patches? After all, their choice of name doesn't affect our
ability to use the patches, only your company's ability to market the name
"BIND". "Not our problem."
(The easy operation reason for not using the patches being, of course, that
they're completely unnecessary, and will likely introduce lookup delays
that the administrator probably isn't expecting from that press-release-ish
announcement they originally sent out.)
> ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root
> networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS
> protocol.
[...]
> In addition, the possibly infringing product "MultiBind" from American
> Webmasters directly contravenes the IETF IAB's position as laid out in RFC
> 2826(*1).
*sigh^2* I can't wait for this argument to start up again.
--
Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
