I think I mentioned this on domain-policy, and I note that sendmail.net's
got a story about it:
http://www.sendmail.net/?CssUID=&CssServer=&SessionName=&feed=interview000lisa01
However, there's a slight error here. The sendmail.net story says,
"Vixie described this last feature as "the split-horizon DNS people have
wanted for a long time," noting dryly (and to considerable applause)
that as for "people like AlterNIC who want us to believe it's possible
to have more than one set of root name servers, this will not
facilitate their political agenda at all."
I was there. In a room of 3-400 people, about 10 clapped, tentatively.
I also find it somewhat interesting that someone who's gone out of his
way to stay out of politics ("I'm not in this for your revolution"),
makes a snide political comment that, in effect, exposes his bias.
I can understand his desire to maintain stability; hell, I'm for it.
But other than hand-waving and fortune-telling, I haven't heard a good
technical reason against multiple roots. I don't want to start a holy
war, but is there a good solid techincal reason why multiple roots
wouldn't work? (Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean
a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.) Let's avoid
politics entirely, and let me ask the question this way: Is there
a good technical reason why com, net, and org couldn't be broken up
into three seperate roots?
--
Mark C. Langston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA
