Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8265211E81DC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bW-ai0b2j9em for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1130A11E80D7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-2430.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79E8C8A031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:07:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:07:44 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130314200744.GF50106@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <83AFF07DE0F646C0860A0631F973E9D1@LENOVO47E041CF> <20130313144321.37307.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAMm+LwizGFr7RgtUFGjtJufRywtf0AJsVYO19TiwoN-SzJgyfA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwizGFr7RgtUFGjtJufRywtf0AJsVYO19TiwoN-SzJgyfA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:07:47 -0000

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 01:20:42PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Regardless of what the DNS mythology claims, the DNS administrator of
> example.com has complete control over the subtree beneath it. That is
> how the DNS is designed. If the owner of a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.example.com
> wants independence from example.com they have only one route and that
> is to buy a domain of their own.

Well, yes and no.

The administrator of example.com has complete control over the subtree
beneath in the sense that s/he can either create names underneath,
_or_ can delegate beneath, _or_ can delete the delegation.  But if the
administrator of example.com delegates away h.i.example.com, s/he has
no control over what goes inside h.i.example.com.

It's trivially true that any name has control of the delegations
beneath it.  But I don't see how it's relevant.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com