[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?
--bill
More information about the dns-operations
mailing list