If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then probably
unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server located at USA.
This was true when Taiwan earthquaked on Dec.26, 2006.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27/boxing_day_earthquake_taiwan/
That is why the draft uses P2P
On 26 Jun 2008, at 06:13, 黄理灿 wrote:
If queries can not find the right data in the local cache, this
draft goes to the servers in the upper layer of tree or the servers
having the minimun hop distance with authoritative server, instead
of going to the root servers.
You seem to be assumi
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 09:42:35PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> And furthermore, these two China servers don't benefit any ISP in China
> that doesn't peer with ISC, so Dr. Huang's hypothetical scenario is
> true, as previously demonstrated, despite Mr. Abley's humorous
> assertions about their "
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2008, at 21:42, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > There is nothing misleading in "The ISP".
>
> Apart from the fact that it's singular, which was the basis of the
> only technical point it seemed to me that you tried to make.
My point was not base
Greetings. I had a brief discussion with Olaf Kolkman about some
deficiencies in RFC 4641, and he agreed to revise the document if the
WG is interested. This message is to start gauging interest in that
task.
I started reading RFC 4641 when I was on the panel at ICANN that
reviewed PIR's prop
I'm not a dnssec operator, yet, either. But I think updating a flawed
document is better done sooner than later. I'm for updating it.
--Dean
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. I had a brief discussion with Olaf Kolkman about some
> deficiencies in RFC 4641, a
Paul Hoffman (paul.hoffman) writes:
>
> Olaf agreed that there may be more operational input from people who are
> currently deploying DNSSEC, and that this document might be ripe for a
> renewal even though it is less than two years old. How do people in the WG
> feel about this?
Recent events
