forwarded....
-- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland --------------5D8717F20A689C8961E3E0ED Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inlineReceived: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26374 for <SHAW@SEIT.ITU.CH>; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:37:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from ties.itu.ch (ties.itu.ch) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01IT3LMEWWG8934TBV@ITU.CH> for robert.shaw@ITU.CH; Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:37:17 +0200 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10661; Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:36:39 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:36:39 +0100 (MET) From: owner-pab@ties.itu.ch Subject: BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org: Non-member submission from [Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@swip.net>] To: owner-pab@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <199802020836.JAA10661@ties.itu.ch> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Authentication-warning: ties.itu.ch: majordomo set sender to owner-pab@gtld-mou.org using -f
>From pab-owner Mon Feb 2 09:36:26 1998 Received: from nix.swip.net (nix.swip.net [192.71.220.2]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22961; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:36:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from think.swip.net (workstation1.swip.net [130.244.254.1]) by nix.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA16387; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:33:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980202093150.00854960@nix.swip.net> X-Sender: paf@nix.swip.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:31:50 +0100 To: Peter Mott <peter@2day.net.nz> From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@swip.net> Subject: Re: Grass Roots Servers Cc: poc@gtld-mou.org, pab@gtld-mou.org In-Reply-To: <00a101bd2fa9$c3f40690$011a62cb@mail.2day.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 20:11 1998-02-02 +1300, Peter Mott wrote: >Any comments on this approach? > >http://www.best.com/~philh/grs/
Initially I have three problems with this. The first two are connected to each other.
This system can not guarantee that you can reach with one random application every other host on the Internet. Each DNS server chooses himself what servers he is using, which means that he chooses what TLDs he accepts.
This system can not guarantee that the namespace is consistent. Noone can guarantee that the NS record for a certain TLD is the same in every one of the grass root servers. Especially when NS records changes for TLDs, you will get problems. Instead of being forced to have a root hint file updated at each DNS server, you have to have a whole bunch of NS records for TLDs updated, which is a completely different scale.
This system means that we get a fragmented DNS, just like if we have a fragmented telephone system in the world, with no coherent numbering plan. People running DNS servers do not update their zone files. That's the fact. So, they will not update the NS records when they change.
To conclude, this is the kind of system I do not want to have.
Patrik
Email: paf@swip.net URL: http://www.tele2.se PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975 D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602
--------------5D8717F20A689C8961E3E0ED--