[dns-operations] requirements for TLD servers

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Mar 22 15:08:28 UTC 2010

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:30:17PM +0100, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:14:10AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
> > I think that could/should be broadened Peter to include other TLDs.  
> Agree it could, but disagree for the "should", unless you'd want to
> start an infinite endeavour.  Think "jurisdiction" or "constituency".
> -Peter

	RFC 2780 was fatally flawed from its inception.
	by the time it was published, its assumptions had 
	already been overcome by events - the roots no
	longer held .com, .net, or .org; anycast was in wide
	use and not comprehended; and the focus was more on 
	single server hardening and paid little attention to
	service availability.

	I know of at least two attempts to revamp RFC 2780,
	but they didn't get very far.  It would be a shame to
	see folks like ICANN successfuly pummel the ops folks
	with a practically defunct spec.  How much interest
	is there in getting a revised RFC 2780 or a series of
	replacement RFCs out the door?


More information about the dns-operations mailing list