On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:58:11PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> I think I mentioned this on domain-policy, and I note that sendmail.net's
> got a story about it:
> http://www.sendmail.net/?CssUID=&CssServer=&SessionName=&feed=interview000lisa01
>
> However, there's a slight error here. The sendmail.net story says,
>
> "Vixie described this last feature as "the split-horizon DNS people have
> wanted for a long time," noting dryly (and to considerable applause)
> that as for "people like AlterNIC who want us to believe it's possible
> to have more than one set of root name servers, this will not
> facilitate their political agenda at all."
>
>
> I was there. In a room of 3-400 people, about 10 clapped, tentatively.
> I also find it somewhat interesting that someone who's gone out of his
> way to stay out of politics ("I'm not in this for your revolution"),
> makes a snide political comment that, in effect, exposes his bias.
>
>
> I can understand his desire to maintain stability; hell, I'm for it.
> But other than hand-waving and fortune-telling, I haven't heard a good
> technical reason against multiple roots. I don't want to start a holy
> war, but is there a good solid techincal reason why multiple roots
> wouldn't work? (Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean
> a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.)
What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2)
ensure that they are mutually-exclusive?
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
