Re: against broken tld content

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

> >>>>> "Masataka" == Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> writes:
> 
>     Masataka> Are you saying you think "broken" fits well and you
>     Masataka> still need a definition on it?
> 
> I think what Bill was saying was that your draft needs to define what
> you mean by broken. [Not that I speak for Bill.] Brokenness could

	often you speak better than I.  thanks for clarifying 
	many of the points I implied.
	
> cover many things: lame servers, inconsistent zone contents, wrong
> DNSSEC keys or elapsed SIGs (ha!), "too slow" propagation of new zone
> data, unresolvable NS records, servers with polluted caches, zones
> with idiot wildcarding, all name servers behind one router or AS,
> buggy DNS software, name servers operated by someone called Jim, etc,
> etc. Which of these scenarios fall within your implicit category of
> broken? If you want people to take certain action whenever they
> encounter a broken name server, there should be a clear definition of
> what broken means. If there isn't, anyone will be able to apply their
> own arbitrary definition of brokenness. That would be even more broken
> as it would lead to lots of confusion and inconsistency. For example,
> most of this list will probably have an opposite opinion on the
> current level of brokenness of .com and .net from the people at
> Verisign who recently added that controversial wildcard.
> 

--bill
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.