On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: > in my opinion, the applicability statement of a recursive solution would > be: "if you want these benefits and can manage these risks, then you can > configure your rdns as follows". whereas the applicability statement for > an authoritative solution would be: "if you want to serve root dns > content to a loopback, lan, campus, or global network, then configure > your adns and your routing as follows." > > separate from applicability, there is vision. the vision statement for > an rdns solution would be: "to allow self selected recursive dns > operators to become less dependent on the root name server system, the > following proposal is offered." whereas the vision statement for the > adns solution would be: "to better server root dns content to the > internet, the following proposal is offered."
These statements assume that there is a need for an "authoritative solution", which has yet to be discussed. A lot of the criticism of draft-wkumari-dnsop-dist-root has come from people who seem to question the need for expanding the operational base of authoritative servers beyond what it is now (a set of 12/13 administrators, many of whom use anycast). Given that you are one of the co-authors of draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot, can you say why your authoritative proposal is significantly better than the current operational base? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
