nanog mailing list archives
Re: NSI policy on lame delagations
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:00:30 -0800
I submit that this is a process issue. There is a manual process as well as an automated one. The two of them have to coordinate. The problem is that part of the process is non-deterministic and is thus very difficult to automate. Until someone definitively solves the non-deterministic part there will always be some uncertainty in the domain name submission/approval process. This can be largely countered by proper education, by the ISP, of the Domain Name requestor. Basically, lag times need to be considered on both sides of the issue. The requestor can't consider their domain, as theirs, until they get confirmation, from the registrar. Conversely, the reqistrar can't require there to be existing name servers until the requestor has recieved confirmation of the domain name. I submit that it is incumbent on the requestor to inform the registrar when such servers are ready, this is a process step that is not included in the current process. At such time, the registrar can then reasonably expect the new name servers to be running and perform the process-step of fully activating the domain. At 04:40 AM 11/21/98 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
there should be no lame delegations.Agreed. However, testing sometime after registration (as they seem to be doing) is much more user friendly than testing before registration.depends to which user you are trying to be friendly. there is a clear responsibility to the internet at large. there should be no lame delegations.The reason I say this is that some folks automatically reload their nameservers which have tens of thousands of domain names once a day and have clients that want domains registered on the same day they request them. (queuing is not an option.)if they intend to serve those clients, as opposed to pretending to do so, then they should load thier servers when they are pretending to do so. randy
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer () mhsc com>rmeyer () mhsc com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ Who is John Galt? "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand
Current thread:
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations, (continued)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Mike Leber (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Randy Bush (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Mike Leber (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Jon Zeeff (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Paul Vixie (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Randy Bush (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Michael Dillon (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Steven J. Sobol (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Michael Dillon (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Steven J. Sobol (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Mike Leber (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Roeland M.J. Meyer (Nov 21)
- Message not available
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations bmanning (Nov 21)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Paul Vixie (Nov 22)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Vadim Antonov (Nov 22)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Paul A Vixie (Nov 23)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Jon Zeeff (Nov 23)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations jmalcolm (Nov 23)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Paul Vixie (Nov 23)
- Message not available
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 25)
- Re: NSI policy on lame delagations Steven J. Sobol (Nov 23)