| Jon Postel |
August 6, 1943 - October 16, 1998
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2468.txt
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
If you or any other folks ever see any oddness with the UltraDNS
nameservers, it would be helpful if you could provide traceroutes.
and what assurance do you have that the traceroute is to the same
server to which the original query failed?
difficulty debugging anycast dns was the major
Ouch.
Original Message
Subject: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:38:14 -0400
From: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Randy Bush wrote:
and what assurance do you have that the traceroute is to the same
server to which the original query failed?
difficulty debugging anycast dns was the major reason for sceptisim
re anycast auth servers.
You're right, Randy. However, things are never black or white. In
it would appear that given the large scale
ddos attacks against networks, and dns in particular over the last year,
an anycast implementation is the *only* way that dns has a chance of
surviving.
It might help but isn't a cure all.
If they can query it they can DoS it and given the splay
Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded
giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea
what they spun to the press afterwards.
What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on
and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
What I think will be interesting is who has the bind patch this
time around. The first time many companies didn't deploy the bind
patch for reasons ranging from taking a few days to study the impact
to not being able to deploy new software on their nameservers that
quickly to not being able to
All,
I hate to agree but he is right.
With companies like godaddy out there.
Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our headaches?
To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND version truly
break sitefinder?
Later,
Jim
--Original
Sean Donelan wrote:
An anonymous reader using almost identical language to Verisign
Usage of the patch unexpectedly
broke at least 7 Top Level Domains, ISC announced 3 weeks later, after
users started having problems.
Where? I cannot find the announcement.
... how will the Verisign
--Original Message-
-From: Phil Rosenthal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-As long as it's provider assigned, and your provider announces the
-supernet that the /24 is from, it will still work. If you
-announce PI
-space out of the old class A space in /24's, many networks
-wont be able
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing
William Allen Simpson writes on 10/16/2003 7:04 PM:
broke at least 7 Top Level Domains, ISC announced 3 weeks later, after
users started having problems.
Where? I cannot find the announcement.
This bind-announce post -
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bind/2003/0023.html
srs
Amen to that. We did as well, except for our customers that re-upped
themselves with Verislime.
Kevin Bednar
Network Engineer
Dedicated Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(973)940-6126
Personal Service with a :-)
Semper Vigilo
Tellurian Networks - Le Package Totale
http://www.tellurian.com/
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:44, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
[...]
We are annoucing a /24 from the 66 /8 block and I have only found 2
ISP's
(according the the netlantis project) that can't reach me.
We are multihomed. I suspect that may be due to aggregation.
But even with our backup online, I still saw
Verisign obviously doesn't want the Registrar
business, or they would have found out a way
to combine all those accounts when we asked.
You do know they just this morning announced that they're selling the
Registrar business, don't you?
Ray
--
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) - Technical Director
This is interesting:
Dear Valued Network Solutions® Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive
agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity formed by Pivotal
Private Equity.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
(419) 720-3635
begin 666 clear.gif
Just got this email from Network Solutions...
Hm
--mval
From: Network Solutions, Inc.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:31 AM
To: domreg@
Subject: Announcement
Dear Valued Network Solutions® Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered
I don't know if this is a related move or not, but I just received an
email from Verisign that they are selling NetSol. A snippet:
Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive
agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this day and age, people don't guess URLs anymore by sticking .com at
the end of a word so there is no longer any advantage to using a .com
domain name over a .biz or .info or .us.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that that
I have received many very helpful responses to that question. In summary,
the majority common practice for the case I presented seems to be:
1. run BGP on all routers in the core, even those that do not have
interfaces to the outside of the AS. Here, this means R0 should run BGP.
2. This
Quoting Rusty Lewis from
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031007b.html?sl=070804
We will continue to take feedback from both Internet users and the
technical community on how we can ensure that the service is available
for the many Internet users who clearly like it.
Well that's
so, luxury hotels, japanese fiber, and registery services?
I guess booking is a booking.
http://www.pivotalgroup.com/newsopen.html
Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
Computing CenterUniversity of Oregon
llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Adam C. Greenfield wrote:
: Yea, looks like (after a brief reading of the press release on their
: site) that they are just selling their registrar business off, but will
: still be the people maintaining the com and net registries.
Which sounds like an attempt to prevent
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility
given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite
a bit longer than a .biz or .info. Although looking at that list I might note that I
probably would include .us with .com
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by
different companies?
Isn't that what we wanted all along?
-C
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:58:11AM -0400, Adam C. Greenfield wrote:
Yea,
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Joe sent a note that identified a possible common thread in the version
of bind the recursive servers were using. Could you perhaps look at that
and see if there is any commonality?
I'll see what I can do about that. Unfortunately, the folks
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
and what assurance do you have that the traceroute is to the same
server to which the original query failed?
difficulty debugging anycast dns was the major reason for sceptisim
re anycast auth servers.
However as the dns
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
This point just became moot.
Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being
spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
They're selling the _registrar_ business off. They retain the _registry_
and the associated stuff to the back
It is a much better idea that these functions are performed by a
seperate (IMHO). Of course they are doing it to resolve the conflict of
interest issue, and the people saying (and filing suit) about the fact
that SiteFinder is un-fair competition between them and the other
registrars.
I'm not
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
We've been moving all our domains to OpenSRS for a year, but doing it as
they come up for renewal.
He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere.
Unfortunately,
we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to
register
our domains, that registrar is paying the part of Verislime that is
inflicting
this on us to run the REGISTRY for .com and .net.
The only
Recognizing that I am not an 'expert', I have got to ask just one
question. Can these people at Verisign really think that they know
better than all of the real experts that have worked with/on the DNS
over the years. It seems rather silly to assume that a few people have
more knowledge than
On Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:19:25AM -0400, Chris Woodfield wrote:
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by
different companies?
Isn't that what we wanted all along?
Yes,
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
owned by
different companies?
Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer
based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my spam
Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network Solutions or just the
Registrar? Does Verisign plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
with the Network Solutions sale?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:40 AM -0400 Mark Vallar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just got this email from
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:46 AM -0400 Kee Hinckley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL
Hello;
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:57 PM, Forrest wrote:
True enough, but are there any providers currently that filter /24's
from
the old Class C space that /24's were assigned directly from?
As someone who is multihomed but uses others /24's, I am sensitive to
this.
I do not
What effective action can we take as a collective group to
get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior?
Internet death penalty? (at last a topic you can configure
your router for)
Having been provided a mechanism to catch all those typos what ISP
wouldn't want that
ICANN threatened legal action before, effectively. Are they doing
anything this time?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:56:47 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere.
Unfortunately,
we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to
At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Ouch.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html
VeriSign to revive redirect service
by Declan McCullagh
VeriSign will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming a
controversial and temporarily suspended feature that redirected many
.com
They claim to be representing the USER community and to know better than
we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of geek
engineers
that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all, they think they can
make money this way, and, they don't really care about anything else.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the
registry services operations and the GTLD maintenance operations
for .com/.net will be owned by different companies?
Yep.
Uh, actually, no. They're spinning off the registRAR
Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network
Solutions or just the Registrar? Does Verisign
plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
with the Network Solutions sale?
According to the press release they plan to keep the registry.
Ray
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:08 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
owned by
different companies?
Yep. And it means that Verisign business is
Yes, I will heartily agree with this. Having this functionality be
triggered by a wildcard in the DNS records is the wrong approach. It's
the application that should be taking care of this
if (NXDOMAIN)
redirect(preferences-sitefinder_host, url);
If verisigin wants to partner with someone to
Correction... People would prefer that Verisign keept the REGISTRAR
operations for .com/.net and sold the REGISTRY operations. REGISTRY
is the monopoly part that the REGISTRARs feed into.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:58 PM +0100 Simon Lockhart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu Oct 16,
CW Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:19:25 -0400
CW From: Chris Woodfield
CW So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the
CW registry services operations and the GTLD maintenance
CW operations for .com/.net will be owned by different
CW companies?
I wonder just how different they are,
At 9:19 AM -0700 10/16/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
No, that's correct. I just can't keep them straight in my fingers
(and neither can
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
owned by
different companies?
Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer
based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging
I like it. I'm game.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:04 AM -0700 JC Dill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Ouch.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html
VeriSign to revive redirect service
by Declan McCullagh
VeriSign will give a 30-
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:41:52 +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:
Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network
Solutions or just the Registrar? Does Verisign
plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
with the Network Solutions sale?
According to the press release they plan to keep the
OK, so who is responsible for bringing the fruit? Does our registration
fee cover that? :D
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JC Dill
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:05
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or
Email me if you are familiar with the fiber landscape (dark/lit)
or lack thereof in the Portland/Beaverton areas.
Thanks,
BM
I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
MX only applies to smtp.
Due to a wide variety of applications relying upon A
records as their method, or method of last resort (eg: if no MX,
go directly to the
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
To recap: At NANOG 29 in Chicago, on Monday October 20th at 9:15 am a
session on VeriSign's Wildcard Record: Effects and Responses will be
held, with Mark Kosters and Matt Larson from VeriSign and Suzanne
Owen DeLong wrote:
They claim to be representing the USER community and to know better
than we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of
geek engineers that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all,
they think they can make money this way, and, they don't really care
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:08:41PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
MX only applies to smtp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically what SRV records
(rfc2782) are intended
Just a brief statement that kinda goes without saying but I'll say it
anyway.
Although I'm not going to be there personally, I do intend to watch
the netcast.
I would just ask (and I'm sure merit folks share this) that despite
the actions that have been taken by verisign and the conflicts etc,
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
lets not
tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
Scot
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
To recap: At NANOG 29 in Chicago, on Monday October 20th at 9:15 am
a session on VeriSign's Wildcard Record: Effects and Responses
will be held, with Mark Kosters and Matt Larson from VeriSign and
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
NEVER. We're not qualified to make decisions like that because we don't
know what the effects could or would be. Likewise VeriSign obviously
doesn't,
Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
I will not throw the tomato at Verisign no matter how much they deserve it.
Wayne is
I would also suggest that we try to make contact with a second-harvest or
other organization that may be able to use the tomatoes afterwards.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:36 -0700 Wayne E. Bouchard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a brief statement that kinda goes without saying but
Maybe a vote at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting to see
what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as press worthy... but it lets Verisign have their say, and
gives the community a voice right
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
lets not
tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
Nope, they're an indicator of distaste and disrespect.
I don't think anybody wants to convey
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
This isn't necessarily a great analogy for this situation. It is
I for one am going to dumping all traffic bound to SiteFinder.
One (operational) suggestion.
Kindly return an icmp [net|host|port] unreachable, not just a route to
/dev/null.
Just a thought about the (waste of) client retrys and timeouts.
Thank you,
-bryan bradsby
==
The
At 12:00 PM 10/16/2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
I will not throw the tomato at Verisign
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:03:44PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
lets not
tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
Nope, they're an indicator
Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
However as the dns was walked, if indeed a server had a problem, in a
non-anycast implementation you could tell which server ip address had
the problem. But you could not always tell which actual machine had a
problem if
If you are attending NANOG 29, please attend this session and wear a
red shirt.
Ahem. Many of us are Star Trek experts, and it will take a LOT more than
this to get people to wear a red shirt.
Huh? I'm somewhat familiar with Star Trek, and, I realize the red shirts
are usually the first to die
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
This isn't
You have to give Verisign some props for having the balls to present at
NANOG...and those props should be in the form of not chasing them from the
room with angry threats and pitchforks.
Mark and the rest of the folks from Verisign, formerly NSI, formerly
Internic, etc, etc have long been
as already mentioned, fascinating public policy theatre
is going on in DC on the verisign wildcard issue, see
http://secsac.icann.org/
[all video and even transcripts of both meetings online. go icann.]
you are encouraged to read through all of it before making public comments
on this
At 4:07 PM +0100 10/16/03, Ray Bellis wrote:
Quoting Rusty Lewis from
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031007b.html?sl=070804
We will continue to take feedback from both Internet users and the
technical community on how we can ensure that the service is available
for the many Internet
: Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
: sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
: no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
: I will not throw the tomato at Verisign no matter how much they deserve
At 11:56 AM 10/16/2003, Chris Strandt wrote:
Maybe a vote at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting to see
what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as press worthy... but it lets Verisign have
Ahem. Many of us are Star Trek experts, and it will take a LOT more
than this to get people to wear a red shirt.
A red EFF t-shirt (as a sign of recent donation) would be a good choice :)
--vadim
On 16 Oct 2003, at 11:25, Bruce Campbell wrote:
I know to look for 'version.bind', 'id.server', 'version.server' and a
few
others, but I hadn't considered asking for 'whoareyou.arbitary.domain'.
Why would other people consider it?
Incidentally, there is a similar mechanism available for the F
My bad I should've been more specific, that is indeed what I will
personally be doing on any networks that I can, which should be basically
everything.
I'm also considering the other alternative suggested by some, which is to
push traffic to a host of my own.
I will have to do something about
At 12:45 PM -0700 10/16/03, JC Dill wrote:
At 11:56 AM 10/16/2003, Chris Strandt wrote:
Maybe a vote at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting
to see what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as
At 03:30 PM 10/16/2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Bruce Campbell wrote:
[much snipped]
Also, did the query that I'm debugging really go to the same host that I
just got the real IP address from?
I believe I covered that in my initial response to Randy which you
snipped. I said:
Dan Senie has
all
those who approve
of the wildcards would put their token-of-choice in another pile.
Might I suggest the joker out of a deck of playing cards ? ; )
Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at www.paymentech.com
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and
I will do my best to get the tomatos. How many do you think we will
need?
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JC Dill
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:12
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29
At 12:00 PM
I would also suggest that we try to make contact with a second-harvest or
other organization that may be able to use the tomatoes afterwards.
Or just use your time and resources to do some good for
those who are less fortunate in the first place. Using
food of any kind
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, JC Dill wrote:
Great idea! Can we count on Dan for tomato acquisition and for Owen for
post-protest dispersal to a foodbank?
Having been a part of many fraternity pranks along this line, I might
remind some of a glitch with this line of thinking.
VeriSign employees read
Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
serves the end-user.
This doesn't matter, their point should be moot. Verisign is charged with
managing the .com and .net domains for the public. They DO NOT OWN those
domains so they are not allowed to use them for their own
on 10/16/2003 2:26 PM k claffy wrote:
caida has the following request on behalf of icann's secsac committee
a common theme over the last week is an admitted lack of hard data
[rather than lists of theoretical breakages, and anecdotal evidence,
and predictions] from the operational
I have no religion about the particular choice of fruit/vegetable (yes, I
know
tomatoes are technically fruit).
However, I think we should try to stick to Red and the symbolism of the
tomato
cannot be denied. It has long been used as a response to bad implementation
and that is exactly what we
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
of what best serves the infrastructure providers.
The two options are not mutually exclusive, and, since Verisign has
chosen to turn this into a press-battle, I think it would be good not
to ignore that battlefield.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 14:56 -0400 Chris Strandt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe a vote at the end of the
I have to agree with Scott. Be professional.
Y'all can use tomato.net as examples if you want
(though actually that one belongs to buydomains.com,
which buys potentially resellable domain names.)
A more important concern is that they keep mentioning that they've
been talking to web users and
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:38:57 EDT, Vachon, Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are
proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above.
Well.. I severely doubt that any of the
KH Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:23:41 -0400
KH From: Kee Hinckley
KH Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
KH serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
KH understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
KH of what best serves
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
