Root Server Operators (Re: What are they smoking?)

Wed Sep 17 20:23:16 UTC 2003

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i don't think so.  verisign is on public record as saying that the reason
> they implemented the wildcard was to enhance the services offered to the
> internet's eyeball population, who has apparently been clamouring for this.

My question is, if this was to serve some need of internet users, why does
port 25 work and not port 80?

So, I'm curious as to your opinion about the bigger issue. Maybe it has
been stated somewhere else, and if it has, please direct me to it. I've
read all of your posts about this on nanog, and you do an excellent job of
staying neutral. You point out that what Verisign is doing is technically
valid and therefore shouldn't be addressed with a technical "solution",
but you also release a patch for Bind to accomodate obvious demand (and to
save users the hassle of implementing half-assed patches with hardcoded A
records). However, you do so without actually stating whether or not you
think the wildcards are a (policy) problem or not.

You point out that there is high-level ambiguity about the relationship
between DOC, ICANN, and Verisign, and about whether or not Verisign should
have the public's interest in mind. Do you think they should have the
public's interest in mind? And do you think the wildcards are in the
public's interest?

I can certainly empathize with wanting to stay neutral, but I think we
need somebody who carries substantial influence in the name resolution
community to have strong opinions about such a poor policy decision.

Andy

---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---

Root Server Operators (Re: What *are* they smoking?)

Root Server Operators (Re: What are they smoking?)