On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Hugh Dierker <[email protected]>wrote:
> Fair trade is necessary trade. Unnecessary tradeoffs are lame. > I agree. It is a tradeoff and not fair trade. > These problems are not necessary -- except that they are within the given > framework of lack of motivation to do better. It comes down to this, if we > set our standards outside of competitive models there is no incentive to do > better. ICANN, the Dnssec and this SAIC are working within government > sanctioned slobbery, both intellectual and economic slobbery. I used to > think it was snobbery, now I know it is a laziness born of shovel leaning > bureaucrats. You may be kind and call it "make work" but would you call > intentional fraud "make work"? Buggy whips and Railroad fireman is what this > is. > Again I agree. DNSSEC is a snow job by committee. SAIC is a joke. "I" root server in Beijing is still down. Where is SAIC on that. > > The plan I am putting together for the inculsives will generate some new > fire under the pants of these obstructionists and they will find that a > better mousetrap can be built. > Thank you - I and my TLD holders thank you. regards joe baptista > > > > --- On *Thu, 4/22/10, Joe Baptista <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Joe Baptista <[email protected]> > Subject: [ga] Re: Resolving .gov w/dnssec > To: [email protected], "[email protected] >> GA" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Paul Wouters" <[email protected]>, "Bind Users Mailing List" < > [email protected]>, "Timothe Litt" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 8:07 AM > > Looks like the future of the DNSSEC make work project includes resolution > failures here and there. More security - less stability - guaranteed > slavery. I wounder if it's a fair trade. > > we'll see .. > regards > joe baptista > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Chris Thompson > <[email protected]<http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On Apr 22 2010, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Timothe Litt wrote: >>> >>> I'm having trouble resolving uspto.gov with bind 9.6.1-P3 and 9.6-ESV >>>> configured as valdidating resolvers. >>>> >>>> Using dig, I get a connection timeout error after a long (~10 sec) >>>> delay. >>>> +cdflag provides an immediate response. >>>> >>> >>> Is anyone else seeing this? Ideas on how to troubleshoot? >>>> >>> >>> I have the same problems with our validating unbound instance. >>> >> >> I suspect that this has to do with >> >> dig +dnssec +norec dnskey uspto.gov @dns1.uspto.gov. >> dig +dnssec +norec dnskey uspto.gov @sns2.uspto.gov. >> >> failing with timeouts, while dig +dnssec +norec +vc dnskey uspto.gov @ >> dns1.uspto.gov. >> dig +dnssec +norec +vc dnskey uspto.gov @dns2.uspto.gov. >> >> work fine ... with a 1736-byte answer. Probably the fragmented >> UDP response is getting lost somewhere near the authoritative >> servers themselves. >> >> -- >> Chris Thompson >> Email: >> [email protected]<http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bind-users mailing list >> [email protected]<http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> > > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
_______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
