Re: Verisign Responds

[bmanning () karoshi com]

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Dave Stewart wrote:
> > > > > > Courts are likely to support the position that Verisign has control of .net 
> > > > > > and .com and can do pretty much anything they want with it.
> > > > > ISC has made root-delegation-only the default behaviour in the new bind, 
> > > > > how about drafting up an RFC making it an absolute default requirement for 
> > > > > all DNS?
> > > >         That would be making a fundamental change to the DNS
> > > >         to make wildcards illegal anywhere. Is that what you
> > > >         want?
> > > no it wouldnt. it would ust make wildcards illegal in top level domains, 
> > > not subdomains.
> >     really? and how would that work? (read be enforced...)
>
> Well yes thats part of the problem. It looks like verisign doesnt care 
> what anyone (ICANN, IAB, operators) thinks. But if we can mandate via RFC 
> it for dns software (servers, resolvers) etc. Then we go a ways to 
> removing verisign from the equation. Verisign can do what they like, 
> everyone will just ignore their hijacking.

        lets try this again... why should a valid DNS protocol element
        be made illegal in some parts of the tree and not others?
        if its bad one place, why is it ok other places?

--bill