.nyc - here we go...

Fri Jul 5 03:35:30 UTC 2013

In message <51D61B2B.8020504 at abenaki.wabanaki.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams write
s:
> Someone who should know better wrote:
> 
> > Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> > is nothing we need to let you know.  And yes you can get IPv6
> > everywhere if you want it.  Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> > definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
> 
> And this was true when the v6 and DEC requirements entered the DAG?

DS for COM was added added to the root zone in Feb 2011.  The process
of getting COM signed started a lot earlier well before the root
zone was signed and included ensuring the protocol worked for COM
sized zones.  But hey if you just look a when records are added to
zones you wouldn't see that.

Requiring new zones start at the standard you expect existing zones to
obtain is neither unexpected nor unreasonable. 

> Try again, and while you're inventing a better past, explain how
> everyone knew that it would take 6 revisions of the DAG and take until
> 3Q2012 before an applicant could predict when capabilities could be
> scheduled.
> 
> The one thing you've got going for you is that in 2009 no one knew
> that almost all of the nearly 2,000 applicants would be forced by
> higher technical and financial requirements to pick one of a universe
> of fewer than 50 service providers, or that nearly all of the
> "developing economies" would be excluded, or self-exclude, from
> attempting to apply. So the basic diversity assumption was wrong.
> 
> Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
> confidence they have all the clue necessary?
> 
> Eric
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org