[7613] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New Root Name Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Tue Feb 18 13:25:35 1997
To: newdom@vrx.net
cc: "'Todd Graham Lewis'" <lists@reflections.mindspring.com>,
"'ckuehn@nsf.gov'" <ckuehn@nsf.gov>,
"'gstrawn@nsf.gov'" <gstrawn@nsf.gov>,
"'lsundro@nsf.gov'" <lsundro@nsf.gov>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
reply-to: newdom@vrx.net
In-reply-to: Jim Fleming's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:06:10 CST."
<01BC1CE4.1C6C1DA0@webster.unety.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:21:15 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
This slipped through my procmail filter. I've fixed the filter, but I also
choose to waste my time answering it. Note that I have set the reply-to to
the newdom@vrx.net list.
> The people on the NANOG list seem to have missed
> much of the action for the past few months. I am not
> sure that can be quickly solved.
The people on the NANOG list have more important things to worry about.
> TRUE Root Name Servers are Root Name Servers
> that do not also do double-duty as TLD Name Servers.
> The AlterNIC, Root 64, Root 128 and other movements
> pioneered the notion of TRUE Root Name Servers. The
> IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying to play
> catch up.
I beg to differ. Two years before you knew what DNS stood for, I met with
representatives of the IANA and of Network Solutions and described the
problem. We have worked diligently from then 'til now to bring about some
"."-only name servers, and it has required code changes in BIND to make it
work without sending misshapen responses.
I guess, Jim, that you just aren't in the loop. (I can't imagine why not.)
I can't go on. The rest of the message I quoted above is just too bizarre.
