IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 07 July 2008 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788343A6A5F; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9813A6A05 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtCOf-hlgqCa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D63A3A68D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-150-225-108.tys.bellsouth.net [72.150.225.108]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AWH30013 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48724B7E.6020008@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:59:42 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: Your message of <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org> <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Lyman Chapin <lyman@acm.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> Historically, the view has been that bloating the root servers in that 
> way would be very dangerous.
> 
> Counter-claims observe that .com seems to have survived with a similar 
> storage and traffic pattern, so why should there be a problem moving the 
> pattern up one level?

because it makes the root more expensive to run, and thereby makes the 
root more vulnerable to capture by people bent on making money or 
wielding power (and all that that entails) rather than running it as a 
reliable service for the benefit of the entire network.

indeed, the history of .com provides many instructive examples of why 
the root should NOT be run the same way.

Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email