[dns-operations] the thread of the week

[David Conrad]

Ed,

On Aug 2, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 1) Besides preventing junk from getting to the root server operators,
> slaving the roots locally also means more reliable access - i.e., if
> the information is local then network events (link down, packet
> flood) between the resolver and the root are not an obstacle.

Yep.

> I think that there is a general underestimation of the advantages of
> locally slaving roots.  OTOH, Mark Andrews has expressed full support
> (for one), so I don't think it's that none of us see the advantages.

I also support it, albeit I think it should use an alternative zone  
transfer infrastructure instead of relying on the root server system  
itself.

> 3) As much as it is startling than an OS vendor would make a
> wholesale change to the way their product works, I also find it
> startling that root zone operators can unilaterally place
> restrictions on the access to the root zone they publish in the
> public interest.   As much as the OS vendor did not consult it's
> customers, did the root operators consult with their customers?
>
> 3a) As far as I know, the root operators do not have a public forum
> to discuss their services, there is no place for the public to make
> requests of the root operators as far as service levels, etc - and
> let me emphasize here "as far as I know." I do know of
> http://www.root-servers.org/, but I am told that is not an official
> representation of the root zone operator community.  There's no
> "contact us" link there, for instance.

Indeed.  I could rant on this for quite a bit, but I won't.

Rgds,
-drc