Well, we can just take lessons learnt from the previous time this happened.
Remember in 2003 when VeriSign tried the same thing? Verisign claimed that
their sitefinder service did not break any RFCs.
But it does break RFC 1034
<snip>
If recursive service is requested and available, the recursive response
to a query will be one of the following:
- The answer to the query, possibly preface by one or more CNAME
RRs that specify aliases encountered on the way to an answer.
- A name error indicating that the name does not exist. This
may include CNAME RRs that indicate that the original query
name was an alias for a name which does not exist.
- A temporary error indication.
If recursive service is not requested or is not available, the non-
recursive response will be one of the following:
- An authoritative name error indicating that the name does not
exist.
- A temporary error indication.
- Some combination of:
RRs that answer the question, together with an indication
whether the data comes from a zone or is cached.
A referral to name servers which have zones which are closer
ancestors to the name than the server sending the reply.
- RRs that the name server thinks will prove useful to the
requester.
</snip>
AFAIK, Verisign only pulled back because ICANN threatened legal action.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: July 21, 2008 1:46 PM
> To: Dave Donovan
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Re: 404 vs host now found
>
> Can anyone say if Rogers is actually breaking any Internet RFCs with
> this action?
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Evan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
