Re: [Fwd: Request for Advice on VGRS IDN Announcement]

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

No witch hunt here.  You want witch hunts, that's back out to the
highway, turn left, about ten miles on your right, little town called
Salem.  You can't miss it.

I would note, however, that I am troubled by Verisign's apparently
unilateral decision to do something of this magnitude without
bothering to discuss at least the technical implications first.

Now, if you want a possible counter-argument to the anti-Verisign
comments so far, here's one: what does this change do to the bogon
load on the root servers?  Hint: given the number of sites sites that
still do not have negative response caching enabled, and given the
known bugs in already fielded Microsoft resolver code, the obvious way
to deflect high traffic loads for a bad name is to give positive
responses for that name, pointing at some expendable packet sucker
located far away from the name servers one is trying to protect.

So perhaps when all the dust settles we will decide that what we ought
to be writing is a thank you note to Verisign.   Would have been nice
if they had consulted first, though.

PS: "foad" is an acronym for an impolite imperative phrase.