On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
Sticking up for IANA...
Thanks!
It makes sense to me. If I ask someone to slave my zone, I'm
placing (perhaps implicit) trust that they will operate the server
in a responsible way. I don't have the prerogative to tell the
other person how to run their server but I have the prerogative to
withdraw the slave request if I an unhappy with the way they operate
the server. It makes sense to me that if you are operating a slave
for someone, they get to be notified of the changes you make before
they go into effect.
Even if it may take time to contact all the zones administrators.
Right. The challenge is that current policy requires explicit
approval from both the Administrative and Technical contacts for the
zone (to ensure they have really been notified). As shocking as it
might be to some, there are ACs and TCs that don't respond to
(repeated) e-mail (or faxes or telephone calls) from IANA. This can
(and has) caused requests for name server changes to block. This is a
known problem and was the subject of a public comment request quite
some time ago (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/root-glue-comments/
for the responses). Unfortunately, things sort of got stuck.
Hopefully, Randy's request will unstick things.
Regards,
-drc
