> > > Courts are likely to support the position that Verisign has control of .net
> > > and .com and can do pretty much anything they want with it.
> > ISC has made root-delegation-only the default behaviour in the new bind,
> > how about drafting up an RFC making it an absolute default requirement for
> > all DNS?
> That would be making a fundamental change to the DNS
> to make wildcards illegal anywhere. Is that what you
> want?
no it wouldnt. it would ust make wildcards illegal in top level domains,
not subdomains.
-Dan
really? and how would that work? (read be enforced...)
>
> > > > Courts are likely to support the position that Verisign has control of .net
> > > > and .com and can do pretty much anything they want with it.
> > > ISC has made root-delegation-only the default behaviour in the new bind,
> > > how about drafting up an RFC making it an absolute default requirement for
> > > all DNS?
> > That would be making a fundamental change to the DNS
> > to make wildcards illegal anywhere. Is that what you
> > want?
>
> no it wouldnt. it would ust make wildcards illegal in top level domains,
> not subdomains.
>
> -Dan
really? and how would that work? (read be enforced...)
The same way all RFCs and Standards are enforced, by the IETF Delta
Squad Elite Stormtrooper Interdiction Unit Strike Force.
Well yes thats part of the problem. It looks like verisign doesnt care
what anyone (ICANN, IAB, operators) thinks. But if we can mandate via RFC
it for dns software (servers, resolvers) etc. Then we go a ways to
removing verisign from the equation. Verisign can do what they like,
everyone will just ignore their hijacking.