> > zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
> > zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
> well, thats up to the zone admin.Everything is.
glad you agree.
> my concern is mostly along the lines of folks who will do things like:
> zone "waw.pl" { type delegation-only; };
> to random zones that they think -SHOULD- be delegation-only, regardless
> of what the zone admin specifies.So you are questioning the "type delegation-only" functionality? Then
it's a wrong address, stupidity will always be the biggest problem in
the universe.
in a word, YES. and there have been/are lots of folks
who fall into the trap of either "stupidity" or ignorance (more likely)
who will do things simply because is was in some script or manual w/o
questioning -why-.
These types of folks can be reasoned with, its just that there are so
many of them... More worrysome are those who are disgruntled or are
malicious and will code things up to be disruptive by choice.
while BIND is open-source and any knuckledragging code jock can "haq the source"
to do this, ISC is acting as arm manufacture and dealer, handing out easy to use
code that allows local admins to lie to themselves and those that use their servers
about what the zone admin indicates is correct for the zone. (and yes, I have
a bias here...
However, Verisign hijacking "com" and "net" made few things clear. Most
important: these domains are public, not theirs, hence they should not
that is not clear to me. I'd like to argue that -ALL- delegations are made
in the public interest and are not "owned" by anyone. You and others are
trying to claim that some delegations are "public" and some are not. I'd really
like to see the legal basis for making such a distinction.
do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as delegation-only
is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes its mind.)
perhaps not. I remain unconvinced.