On Apr 10, 2001 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
On Apr 05, 2001 at 16:23:26 PDT, John Palmer wrote:
American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new = version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root = networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one = root.cache file.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm failing to see the need for this for a DNS administrator with 0.5 clues (hint: host your own root zone, and delegate wherever you please). I wasn't even going to respond to his original post until you said:
However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement of ISC's rights to the BIND product name.
*sigh* Shall we draw the comparisons to Tatu Ylonen now, or after you've officially drawn the legal line in the sand with "American Webmasters"? (Assuming, of course, that you haven't already.) This being an operational list, wouldn't it have been possible to avoid the veiled legal threats and stuck to an *operational* reason why we should avoid their patches? After all, their choice of name doesn't affect our ability to use the patches, only your company's ability to market the name "BIND". "Not our problem." (The easy operation reason for not using the patches being, of course, that they're completely unnecessary, and will likely introduce lookup delays that the administrator probably isn't expecting from that press-release-ish announcement they originally sent out.)
ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS protocol. [...] In addition, the possibly infringing product "MultiBind" from American Webmasters directly contravenes the IETF IAB's position as laid out in RFC 2826(*1).
*sigh^2* I can't wait for this argument to start up again. -- Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]