Re: Statements against new.net?
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103131054220.42622-100000@localhost>, Patrick Greenw ell writes: (Portions of post elided, in the name of brevity.)
The fact that there currently exists several different operations root server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact, if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC root servers.
To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.
Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when the IAB formulated this document?
....
What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, especially given the timing?
Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas. And the fact that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones head" is due to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite large; local disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net.
...
Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of any community would. My understanding through following the various mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always a little broken.)
If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a political statement. But it didn't say that. It said that there needs to be one root, regardless of how that is chosen. The notion that "the various operators act as they best see fit" is precisely the kind of thing we want to discourage, since that leads towards inconsistency. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary or desireable :) Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind, but the case from the sociological point of view is far from clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts to enforce consistency. --vadim
It said that there needs to be one root, regardless of how that is chosen. The notion that "the various operators act as they best see fit" is precisely the kind of thing we want to discourage, since that leads towards inconsistency.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:56:07PM -0800, Vadim Antonov may have written:
That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary or desireable :) Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind, but the case from the sociological point of view is far from clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts to enforce consistency.
--vadim
it's a good thing we're network operators and not sociologists then. :) -- Scott Francis scott@ [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m Systems Analyst darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t PGP fingerprint 7ABF E2E9 CD54 A1A8 804D 179A 8802 0FBA CB33 CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.
Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when the IAB formulated this document?
....
What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, especially given the timing?
Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas.
These efforts had been going on for *years* before this document was inked, with actors like Kaspureff(sp?) et. al. You'll forgive me if I find the timing of this document somewhat coincidental with the timing of the process that has left us with ICANN.
And the fact that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones head" is due to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite large; local disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net.
Disruption? What disruption? People making a concious decision where to point resolution to is "disruptive?"
Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of any community would. My understanding through following the various mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always a little broken.)
If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a political statement. But it didn't say that.
From RFC2826:
"...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming authority." This statement in the context of the timing, pretty much sums up the issue.
participants (4)
-
Patrick Greenwell -
Scott Francis -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Vadim Antonov