[dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Thu Jun 26 19:34:37 CEST 2008
On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:01 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:28:09PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: >>> At 19:53 -0700 6/24/08, David Conrad wrote: >>> ...polled -some- root server operators.. > Emphasis mine Actually, the sentence you attribute to me was also yours. >> If indeed the (ICANN) root server operators have misgiving about the >> experiment, could someone operating a root server express the >> reasons? > > two things here. DRC didn't not poll -all- the > operators, only some subset that he selected. Indeed (ignoring the presumably spurious 'not' in the above sentence). I also spoke to folks who weren't root server operators (gasp) to provide the secondary service for the demo/test DNSSEC- signed root zone. The goal wasn't to replicate the root server "system" (what would be the point of that?), rather it was to obtain secondaries for a production-quality demo/test service that would go away once the real root zone was signed. I was specifically looking for professionally-operated widely distributed anycast services that had a track record of knowing how to provide root-level DNS and who could spell DNSSEC. As you yourself are aware, there are folks other than the existing root server operators who can do that sort of thing... > re misgivings about sanctioned alternate roots that > remain persistant... Hence the requirement for an agreement, the exact thing into which some of the root server operators I spoke to refused to enter (the non- root server operator folks I spoke to understood the rationale and had no such qualms). > in this case, (one) of the concerns is the defacto > hijacking of the root zone editorial function - which > is still done under contract/MOU wiht DoC and VSGN. Riiight. Funny: the data served by ns.iana.org for the DEMO/TEST (hint: not the root name service the data for which is published by VeriSign) service was derived from ftp://ftp.internic.net/domains/root.zone. Of course, discussions with the root server operators didn't get very far once the term "agreement" came up and I quickly lost interest trying to pursue it. My patience for purely non-technical politics isn't what it used to be (and it wasn't that good to begin with). Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] .ORG DNSSEC Survey
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]