[64414] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: How long much advanced notice do ISPs need to deploy IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Oct 22 14:57:26 2003
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:56:15 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Chris Parker <cparker@starnetusa.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031022124254.02b8ebb8@mail.starnetusa.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========454048336==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
--On Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:49:39 PM -0500 Chris Parker=20
<cparker@starnetusa.net> 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=20
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
--==========454048336==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ltLPn5zKWQ/iqj0RAsU9AJ9yN4svTtkYLCXjujs276eblX7oMQCfTrDd
LMA3+EXc/CWHGvSjP3Sro4Q=
=11hd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========454048336==========--
