Re: How common is lack of DNS server diversity?

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

>  Ergo, I thought that it was determined as best practice that; Name
> Servers that were offered up, as references, should be root for that level.
> That is, they should be non-recursive. 

        I don't remember any IETF BCP making that claim.
        Recursion is a tool. It can be very helpful in some 
        environments. In inappropriate hands (stupid/evil)
        it can cause serious damage. 

> Another thing missing is a further definition of <authoritative>. Some of us
> have been working with the following;
> <Authoritative servers> ::= <zone authority>|<domain level
> authority>|<authoritative resolvers>
> <zone authority> ::= Final authority for a zone, non recursive.
> <domain level authority> ::= Final authority for a DL, non recursive (ie
> a.root-servers.net, gtld-servers.net, etc).
> <authoritative resolvers> ::= recursive servers, intended for use by
> clients, that claim authority for their specific zones. These include
> stub-resolvers.

        Not quite what I'd use but its an interesting approch.
        Seems like there is an overlap between data origination
        and data publication.  (well, thats not quite right either...:)
        

> BTW, I consider RFC2870 antiquated, because it presupposes an architecture
> which may be outmoded or becoming outmoded rapidly. Load balancing and
> clustering technology makes RFC2870 an unnecessary waste of resources and
> can even get you into trouble.

        Well, RFC2870 might just have taken a leaf from your
        book and used "root" as you have indicated.  Reading it 
        sure gives that impression.

> Yes, some of this is from work done on the ORSC roots. Yes, one of the
> largest problems we have had to overcome, at ORSC, IFWP, and ICANN/DNSO
> discussions, were semantic problems caused by overly simplistic and generic
> semantics. 
> ....
> This happened
> at MSFT, ORSC, and other places that didn't join/agree/submit to
> namedroppers.

        Its tough when the various parties can't reach agreement
        on the basics. One would hope that discussions are continuing
        between these parties and agreement on semantics can be reached.

--bill