Tralliance Proposal

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

The 19 September 2003 IAB Commentary:  Architectural
Concerns on the use of DNS Wildcards states:

"We hesitate to recommend a flat prohibition against
wildcards in "registry"-class zones, but strongly
suggest that the burden of proof in such cases should
be on the registry to demonstrate that their intended
use of wildcards will not pose a threat to stable
operation of the DNS or predictable behavior for
applications and users."

On the other hand, ICANN's Security and Stability
Advisory Committee has recommended:  

"Existing use of synthesized responses should be
phased out in TLDs or zones that serve the public,
whose contents are primarily delegations and glue, and
where delegations cross organizational boundaries."

At issue, is whose advice is more authoritative.  

If we adhere to the counsel of the IAB, then
Tralliance need only document that their proposed
service is essentially identical to the service
already safely in use by .museum.

If we view the SSAC as more authoritative than the
IAB, we should be declining any and all wildcard
requests while acting to phase out the .museum
wildcard service.

To which set of experts shall ICANN defer?  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com