[62843] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign Responds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Hollis)
Tue Sep 23 14:33:24 2003
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
To: bmanning@karoshi.com
Cc: Dave Stewart <dbs@dbscom.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200309231817.h8NIH5009252@karoshi.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning@karoshi.com 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.
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
