> >>>>> "Masataka" == Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Masataka> Are you saying you think "broken" fits well and you
> Masataka> still need a definition on it?
>
> I think what Bill was saying was that your draft needs to define what
> you mean by broken. [Not that I speak for Bill.] Brokenness could
often you speak better than I. thanks for clarifying
many of the points I implied.
> cover many things: lame servers, inconsistent zone contents, wrong
> DNSSEC keys or elapsed SIGs (ha!), "too slow" propagation of new zone
> data, unresolvable NS records, servers with polluted caches, zones
> with idiot wildcarding, all name servers behind one router or AS,
> buggy DNS software, name servers operated by someone called Jim, etc,
> etc. Which of these scenarios fall within your implicit category of
> broken? If you want people to take certain action whenever they
> encounter a broken name server, there should be a clear definition of
> what broken means. If there isn't, anyone will be able to apply their
> own arbitrary definition of brokenness. That would be even more broken
> as it would lead to lots of confusion and inconsistency. For example,
> most of this list will probably have an opposite opinion on the
> current level of brokenness of .com and .net from the people at
> Verisign who recently added that controversial wildcard.
>
--bill
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
