Verisign Responds

Tue Sep 23 18:47:25 UTC 2003

> 
> 
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 bmanning at 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