View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:46 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Rubber Duck Rubber Duck is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonm
Any person can write and submit a draft to IETF, and it will be published. They accept all drafts which meet their document formatting standards.

From the draft, you have one guy from NIST and one from NL working on this. Don't know what conclusions to draw from that, as they are larger organizations, however just because there exists an IETF draft doesn't necessarily mean that there is any thing else than a bored geek behind it.

.

The Google Groups thread has references to Affilias and Neustar, and we all know that Verisign instigated the whole thing, so it all seems pretty much rooted within the GNSO.

The bottom line is that nobody sees the current gTLD implementation time table requiring DNAME any time soon, because they are confident that initially at least things can be handled within the DNS itself. It would seem that if the number of strings requiring Aliasing gets very large then that is going to present major problems, but they can get up and running using this method and it may even have advantages for large volume extensions.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote