 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to kapil
Re: Umm said by kapil:1. ICANN has the authority to regulate this stuff, but it hasn't. Got a problem with DNS redirection? Should have done something about it earlier in the decade when it first became an issue. What do you want, a freakin' cookie ICANN? You're the regulator...REGULATE! Or at the very least don't whine for something completely within your control. 2. Comcast is the poster child for doing something the right way? When did that happen? The ICANN report is focused on TLD operators or Registries, as can clearly be understood in their conclusions, which is obviously an area where ICANN has a direct relationship with such organizations. Comcast is not a TLD operator or a Registry, and IMHO our DNS redirect practices are out of scope for the current document from ICANN.
That being said, I presented in front of the ICANN SSAC during the 75th IETF meeting in July (shortly after I presented to the DNS Operations working group). I'm in the process of updating my Internet Draft (»tools.ietf.org/html/draft-living···irect-00) to include ICANN's and the IETF's feedback.
An overriding concern of both groups has been related to the impact of DNS redirect on the deployment of DNSSEC. The next version of the draft will better address this subject. Astute readers of the Comcast BBR forum will note as well that we've been running a DNSSEC trial for some time (»www.dnssec.comcast.net/) and that we just reported that we upgraded our entire DNS infrastructure (in part to handle the added processing expected due to DNSSEC and IPv6), and so have been doing a great deal to support and get ready for DNSSEC.
--
JL
Comcast |
