Re: [sitefinder-tech-discuss] Technical issues encountered by a k12 site

[John Kinsella <verisign@thrashyour.com>]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:07:54PM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
> I agree that nicname/whois is not the correct solution for your problem. 
>  One method this type of check is to compare the result of the forward 
> domain query against the result of a query for the wildcard (e.g. if 
> example.com == *.com).

This works fine until Verisign decides to return more than one response,
be that for round-robin, targeted advertising, or whatever.

> There are two solutions for picking a non- name for such 

I don't need to quote anymore.  A company does *NOT* break[1] something
and then offer solutions for users to fix things.  The only exception is
when the cost of not changing something is higher than making everybody
change to support the fix.

I understand this list was setup to discuss solutions to the problem.
The problem is Verisign attempted to implement a significant change to
an existing Internet service without consulting the Internet Community.
While this is considered a slow process, the result when approved is a
service which has been looked at from many different angles, properly
engineered, and implemented.  Implementation happens after giving notice
to the community to make any changes to support the new service, if so
desired/required by your fellow community members.[2]

All evidence seen by the Community so far shows that nothing close to
this happened.

The solution, if Verisign wishes to proceed, is to produce a collection
of documents proposing a change, describing it's scope, why it is
necessary, and how it will be implemented.

I look forward to reviewing Verisign's proposals for modifying the various
RFCs Verisign has broken.

John
1: For anybody who is still arguing that Verisign did not break
anything, I look forward to the explanation on why Verisign is offering
solutions to something not broken.
2: Due diligence - mean anything to a publicly traded company?