<snip>
@
@
@ I rest my case. Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable
@ connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except
@ possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode.
@
Karl,
I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
As I understand the situation, eDNS people are now going
to focus on building a more robust version of the BIND
software and will be focusing on operational excellance
and stability.
The uDNS people seem to be more interested in supporting
a wide-range of Registration Authorities and new Top Level
Domains that are somewhat controversial. There does not
seem to be a strong "technical" or "operational" slant to
the uDNS movement.
I am sure that system administrators will be able to make
their decision which Root Name Server Confederation they
prefer. With 6 active confederations, companies now have
a choice. That is what free market help to create.
I look forward to working with you on the new version(s) of
BIND, and I also look forward to seeing uDNS take shape.
Both groups can make a contribution to the Internet.
<snip>
@
@
@ I rest my case. Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable
@ connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except
@ possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode.
@
Karl,
I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
uDNS is claiming to be what eDNS *was*, which simply isn't true.
As I understand the situation, eDNS people are now going
to focus on building a more robust version of the BIND
software and will be focusing on operational excellance
and stability.
Correct.
The uDNS people seem to be more interested in supporting
a wide-range of Registration Authorities and new Top Level
Domains that are somewhat controversial. There does not
seem to be a strong "technical" or "operational" slant to
the uDNS movement.
Actually, unless I grossly misread what I saw last night, there will be no
RAs, and the structure is more than a little different.
I am sure that system administrators will be able to make
their decision which Root Name Server Confederation they
prefer. With 6 active confederations, companies now have
a choice. That is what free market help to create.
Correct so long as people don't mislead the public. Unfortunately many
people like to do that, and its a bad practice which is not limited to any
particular root server set. In fact, it seems to be endemic on the Internet
as a whole.
I look forward to working with you on the new version(s) of
BIND, and I also look forward to seeing uDNS take shape.
Both groups can make a contribution to the Internet.
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp
Thanks.
If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in
the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a
"clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply
stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or
"Premaddona posturing"...
Take care,
Ron
Yep, stable, business-grade service.
On recursion-enabled servers.
Yep.
BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it
is) is that a bunch of people were cheating.
You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable,
business grade service*, defined as:
1) Someone answers your phone.
2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state.
3) You have real nameservers on real circuits.
4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD.
5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD
delegation.
Well, blow me down. Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business
grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria.
Oh, and we're not assessing taxes. Still.
Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the
truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now
putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less
being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.
(...)
You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable,
business grade service*, defined as:
1) Someone answers your phone.
2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state.
3) You have real nameservers on real circuits.
4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD.
5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD
delegation.
(...)
Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the
truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now
putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less
being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.
[puzzled look as he looks at his hands and tries to count fingers...]
There's something here I'm missing I think.
Karl, you *are* the technical wizard in eDNS (or whatever you're merged into
now), aren't you?
Never mind.
John.