To:
randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Cc:
djb@cr.yp.to (D. J. Bernstein), iesg@ietf.org, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Date:
Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:20:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<E12U2ij-000Dju-00@rip.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Mar 11, 2000 11:23:25 PM
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Last Call: Root Name Server Operational Requirements to BCP
% % > Perhaps you'll say that you don't care whether all the TLDs are broken; % > you're just worrying about the root zone. % % correct % As has been pointed out in the past, this document is likely mis-named. And I believe that simply focusing on root servers is wrong. The "trickledown" effect is pervasive in the DNS architecture. RFC 2010 talks about rootserver expectations and recognises that at the time, there was a co-mingling of root and TLD service on the same suite of servers. It also comprehended that the TLD service should be moved to their own sets of servers. This document seems to retain the view that root and gTLD zones will remain comingled. I think it is better addressed to the "flat" gTLDs with large numbers of zones. In any case, I think that Randys focus on just the root is misguided. It is important to have compatability betwen parent and child servers. And this documents label does not reflect that. -- --bill