On Monday, October 3, 2016, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > The wildcard 127.0.53.53 and such are clever, but none of the domains >>>> that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start >>>> with so it's hard to argue they've been effective. >>>> >>> ... >>> >> > ... and just for the record, much much more could have been determined >> (and users better warned / informed) if the address handed out was a >> server which displayed an error / links to more information[0], >> > > Gee, I'd think you of all people would be aware that there's more to the > Internet than the web.
> > ... Did you read the footnote? W > > A wildcard with a live IP in those domains would be a terrible idea for > the same reason that *.com was. > > or if the name-servers serving the wildcard were required to collect and >> publish information and statistics. This would have allowed analysis of the >> effectiveness of the mitigations, etc. >> > > That, on the other hand, would be a good idea. Since all of the new TLDs > use the same dozen back ends, I wonder if any of the back ends could be > persuaded to release anonymized data. > > R's, > John > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
