Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 02:19 01/04/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I 
>am surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support 
>his point.

ns1.earthlink.net, which belongs to an organization that new.net claims as 
a supporter, responds to a query for NS records of shop. with the reply 
that shop. has NS records pointing to udns1.newdotnet.net and 
udns2.newdotnet.net

Care to define how you understood "at root level"?

>Harald, what I say is simply that if BIND was written in a slightly 
>different way, the whole conception of the iCANN and the USG will be 
>different. Exactly like if the use of the DNS was slightly different the 
>whole TM issue would be different. This you should undestand and know. 
>(Will I have some spare time, I will pick and change my named code and use 
>it for my own root).

Please.....if the DNS (as defined by RFC 1035 and associates) had been 
slightly different, it would not have been the DNS.
And if men were more friendly, we would have less anger.
So what?

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: chair@ietf.org
Which of me do you want?      Just me   : Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html