Re: .COM on the move...

["D.J. Dubay" <djdubay () bbnplanet com>]

I'm confused.  RFC 2050 is the IP allocation guidelines.  Perhaps you were thinking 
of RFC 2010 which is Root Server requirements.  That RFC mentions that the Root 
Servers are likely to become disjoint with the InterNIC gTLD servers, but does not 
require it.

The set of servers for the root (".") zone is likely to become disjoint from the 
ser of servers for any TLD or group of TLD's, including those maintained by the 
InterNIC.

You say the InterNIC has a published 5 year plan ... is this on their website 
somewhere?  I haven't seen it.

------------------------
  From: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk () csi net>
  Subject: Re: .COM on the move... 
  Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:02:00 -0500 
  To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming () unety net>
  Cc: nanog () merit edu


Received: from bbnplanet.com (mail.bbnplanet.com [198.114.157.21])
        by sword.bbnplanet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29144
        for <djdubay () csc bbnplanet com>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from merit.edu by mail.bbnplanet.com id aa25139; 5 Aug 97 10:06 EDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
        by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26890;
        Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:06 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
        by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) id KAA26853
        for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from yorktown.paranet.com (yorktown.paranet.com [199.164.131.34])
        by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA26849
        for <nanog () merit edu>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by yorktown.paranet.com; id JAA25568; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:02:28 -0500 
(CDT)
Received: from intrepid.srv.paranet.com(172.16.3.36) by yorktown.paranet.com via 
smap (V3.1.1)
        id xma025540; Tue, 5 Aug 97 09:02:08 -0500
Received: from spsprunk.corp.paranet.com (spsprunk.corp.paranet.com [172.16.4.88]) 
by Intrepid.srv.paranet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA11703; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 
09:02:04 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970805090200.00717b40 () pop srv paranet com>
X-Sender: spsprunk () pop srv paranet com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:02:00 -0500
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming () unety net>
From: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk () csi net>
Subject: Re: .COM on the move...
Cc: nanog () merit edu
In-Reply-To: <01BCA177.972CB140 () webster unety net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1626

NSI, _as stated in their published five-year plan_, appears to be on its
way towards RFC 2050 complaince by continuing the separation of gTLDs and
the root zone.  Since J is the first letter for root-only servers, J is
apparently also being used as the first letter for gTLD-only servers (bad
choice IMHO).

Where is the confusion?  Wait, nevermind...  This is NOT an operational
problem Jim, get your DNS politics OFF nanog.

Stephen


At 08:14 08-05-97 -0500, you wrote:
> Just in case people have not noticed...
>
> ----------
> From:  Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard () sexton org]
> Sent:  Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
> To:    edns-discuss () MCS Net; gtld-discuss () gtld-mou org; newdom () ar com;
edns-discuss () MCS Net; DOMAIN-POLICY () LISTS INTERNIC NET
> Subject:       Part of the open process?
>
> I'm curious about this:
>
> ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
> COM.    518400  NS      H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM.    518400  NS      J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
> <------------------------
> COM.    518400  NS      A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

--
Unsolicited commercial/propaganda email subject to legal action.  Under US
Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C), and Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a
State may impose a fine of not less than $500 per message.  Read the full
text of Title 47 Sec 227 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html

---------------End of Original Message-----------------

--------------------------------------------------------
D.J. Dubay,
Customer Support Center,
Network Operations
BBN Corporation