On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 09:24:46PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >Yes, indeed. Been there...done that. There have been at least 5
> >serious attempts to create alternate root servers. They all have
> >failed. Why do you suppose that is?
>
> Oh, sure, in the past tense you refer to them as
>Instead of all of the roots delegating com/net/org to NSI, let's say
>one delegates com. One delegates net. One delegates org. None of
>the roots know about or pass on information about the others. This
>setup would allow for other such situations, where a competing root
>that delegated foo c
Bradley and all,
To be sure that again the record is straight it has bee Bradley amongst
a very few of his ilk/cohorts that are responsible for the partial damage
that they have tried to inflict on the IDNO. Bradley's use of the term
"JDNO" is a good example of his viciousness and misleading l
>Yes, indeed. Been there...done that. There have been at least 5
>serious attempts to create alternate root servers. They all have
>failed. Why do you suppose that is?
Oh, sure, in the past tense you refer to them as "serious" :-)
But to answer your question, a) because of the personalities
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 06:55:35PM -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
> (Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean
> >> a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.)
> >
> >What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2)
> >ensure that they are mutually-exclusive?
On 15 November 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>As a footnote, to answer Richard's "Huh?" question, I meant that,
>>instead of having the current roots delegating .com, .net., and .org,
>>what technical issues exist that prevent three mutually exclusive,
>>meta-roots (or
>As a footnote, to answer Richard's "Huh?" question, I meant that,
>instead of having the current roots delegating .com, .net., and .org,
>what technical issues exist that prevent three mutually exclusive,
>meta-roots (or whatever you want to call them) each delegating
>.com, .net, and .org?
I s
On 15 November 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2)
>ensure that they are mutually-exclusive?
Well, as I understand it, the current implementation effectively limits
the number of roots to 13. Regardless of the num
(Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean
>> a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.)
>
>What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2)
>ensure that they are mutually-exclusive?
Why ?
I want to be free to create ".free" root (4 letters root) ... and 1
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:58:11PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 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 s
>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?
Huh ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
** The US has the best government money can buy **
On 15-Nov-99 Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 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 techinca
Mark and all,
Your right, there has never been a good argument against Multiple
roots.
Even Paul realized several years ago that multiple roots would eventually
come to pass. And it has. Our BindPlus along with SROOTS
is evidence
of that.
I must say that I am rather surprised that Paul is s
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
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/
Current release BIND Version 8.2.2 patchlevel 5 (Released November 12th,
1999)
-- it seems like every day is a BIND upgrade day.
SNEAKING IPV6 ONTO THE INTERNET
(Source: Network World Fusion) In its battle to get IPv6 widely
deployed, the Internet engineering community is pursuing an
infiltration strategy reminiscent of the Trojan War.
http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=186135
Richard Sexton wrote:
>>Posted publicly on the non-commercial list:
>>
( From Don Heath:)
>>
>>"I was thinking of the following for ISOC. For any new
>>member that Joins ISOC, we have a box on the application that
>>if checked, the member would agree to join the ICANN at
17 matches
Mail list logo
