To:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
cc:
Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>
From:
Robert Martin-Legene <robert@dk-hostmaster.dk>
Date:
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:33:20 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To:
<20030918132547.GC9608@fysh.org>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: delegation-only ineffective
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Zefram wrote: > I'd go so far as to suggest that no single organisation should have > operational control of 50% or more of the authoritative name servers > for the root or any gTLD or similarly critical zone. Depending on where you are, one might argue that certain ccTLD zones really are more critical than any of the gTLD's. I don't think you'll be able to phrase it very well. Also, some TLD registries doesn't want anyone to have copies of the entire zone, so they choose to run all servers themselves. Even if you were to get it into an RFC with reasonable wording, and, let's say .dk was critical for Danish people, what means could be used to force a ccTLD to have secondaries not run by themselves? I think there's a long way to go before that were to happen, since the agreements between many ccTLD registries and ICANN is kind of foggy. -- Robert Martin-Legène #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.