Andrew, On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> A self-correcting problem. The folks that are affected are the ones >> using the non-updated server and no one else. > The problem is that those folks are _exactly_ the people who don't > understand any of this Internet plumbing anyway. All they know is, > "This thing isn't working," or, "The Internet is down," or something > similar. The idea that they're going to put pressure on someone to > fix it entails a great deal of optimism about what naive users might > know about how the Internet functions and who can solve their > problems.
If "the Internet is down", those folks are going to whine to their provider. I refer you to Vijay Gill's statements about the impact of a single support call. While it is admittedly in a different context, I'd still argue it is in the best interests of the name service provider to fix things to minimize the amount of gnashing of teeth they'd be subjected to. However, with that said, I would agree that it would be far better to minimize the chances of stale data in a copied root. I'd think having a way of automating the copying, via oh say zone transfer using regular zone transfer semantics would be the right way to go (Mark Andrews: hint, hint). Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
