Re: placement of secondary name servers for .uk.

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Well, we are also wondering whether we need to change this. The
> current opinion seems to be that, since there is such a lot at
> stake (read commercial value) on a proper working DNS, one needs
> to control the ``slave'' servers as well or at least to have an
> SLA with the slave server operator.

this seems to me rather like the classic telcos trying to figure out
the internet and wanting to make circuits, mpls, ,,, to make it like
the telco network so that they think that they can control and
understand it.  and underneath it is still datagrams, but we try not
to disturb them by rubbing their noses in it. :-)

> There is in CENTR an ad-hoc working group trying to come up with
> what they call a shared nameserver. In this model, one registry
> will run a system which will also host nameservers for others. The
> operation of the hosted nameserevers can be done by the registries
> themselves. The hosting registry takes only care of its own zonefile.

this seems a reasonable middle ground.

randy