Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt

[Paul A Vixie <[e-mail]>]

There are two replies here, one to Randy and one to Andrew.  My coauthor
is obliquely shot at in both of them, so it makes for interesting reading.

-------- 1/2

Randy,

>  o we should specify protocols, not which implementation should be used.
>    i am especially shocked by point 4, which enshrines a mis-feature in
>    BIND into an operational restriction.

No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't.  This isn't a misfeature of BIND, and your
own draft-ietf-dnsind-clarify-01.txt (section 3 and especially section 3.1)
enshrine the same thing that draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt is trying
to say.  Unfortunately, your draft is clearer on this point than ours is, and
so it appears that you and Bill are in disagreement when you're actually not.

>  o remove the national TLDs, and you could neutralize half of the most
>    unrealisticly restrictive issues.

I agree completely with this and in fact the base document from which Bill
started editing was my own InterNIC "."/TLD server criteria.  I don't think
that one document can address both the InterNIC root server set and also any
other; therefore I believe we ought to trim the current document down to just
the things that are true of the "." servers.  Very shortly, I expect the "."
server sets and the InterNIC TLD server sets to become completely disjoint,
at which point it may become necessary for another document to be written in
description of the InterNIC TLD server criteria.  For now, "." is the only
thing _I_ know exactly how to run.  

I hope that Bill will see reason in this objection of yours and change the
document back to what it said when it was only talking about "." servers.

>  o without serious justification, we should not create a new technocracy.
>    i love the phrase 'zone masters', right out of adolescent sci fi.

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated, things are difficult enough without it.  If
you have a different term to suggest, please do so.  Otherwise I hope Bill
will assume that this is an optional/editorial comment and just ignore it.

Paul

-------- 2/2

Andrew,

> [...]
> If you are not running a '.' server, then all of these are just suggestions.
>
> Maybe this draft needs to be rewritten to addresses more clearly these
> two different viewpoints?

Yes, that would be wonderful, and I consider this another call for my coauthor
to listen carefully and slice out all mentions of servers other than for ".".

Paul
-- 
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA			"Illegitimibus non carborundum."
<[e-mail]>
pacbell!vixie!paul