- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 08:51 AM 5/29/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 8:08 AM -0700 5/29/97, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>At IETF San Jose, my nuderstanding is they thought Eugene should move >>forward with .alt in recognition of the work he had done, and take it from >>there. > > I don't know what "they" you are referring to, but there has been >no IETF statement or direction concerning this matter. There certainly has >been no direction to Eugene to do a .alt or any other activity. You'd have to ask Eugene. He was there, I wasn't. He called me form ther with this tidbit. > As noted, the term "pirate" is rather precisely correct since it >refers to those who try to take over that which is not theirs. Really ? Who does it "belong" to then ? How is it expanded upon? You seem to vascilate between "It's a public resource" (in whcih case can the public not add to it") and "IANA owns it" (in which case there are problems). >The DNS has >been a well-running service on the Internet "seas" for many years. It has >an established administrative authority and structure. That authority has >requested change and the IAHC was the agent of that request. The work by >the "other folks" is quite simply an attempt to replace the established >authority and structure with another one. There was once a time when the entire Internet accepted IANA's authotiry. However, since the day NSI began charigng for domain names and IANA did nothing, the confidence in IANA has been eroded. "Taxation without representation" comes to mind. > Given the importance of DNS operational stability, the recent >demise of the latest pirate effort can only make one wonder at the idea of >allowing them to be in the critical path of such a critical resource. > >>Along came IAHC and the shit hit the fan. > > It hit the fan months earlier. The IAHC was created to try to turn >some of it into fertilizer and grow a workable path. And failed, being rejected by: US GOV't NSI Major ISP's Author of the DNS itself which is enough to render it useless. Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise workable solution? Nobody has one yet, and 4 or 5 islands of DNS-dom is insane. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

6 7

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 29 May '97

29 May '97

On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 1:15 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] wrote: @ Jimmy, @ @ >Some folks from Japan once suggested that Japan have @ >their own Root Name Server Confederation. @ @ No, they have a root nameserver. @ They do ? which root name server would that be ? Is APNIC now hosting a root name server ? P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the control of RIPE and it is located in London, England. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

11 16

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Vadim Antonov 29 May '97

29 May '97

smd(a)clock.org (Sean M. Doran) wrote: >It's sad that apparently the Internet has evolved to the >point where politicians move faster than standards-makers. I beg to disagree. The Internet has evolved to the point where politicans make standards. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed. Windows at 11. --vadim

2 1

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 06:58 PM 5/29/97 +0100, you wrote: >Richard J. Sexton wrote: >> solution? Nobody has one yet, and 4 or 5 islands of DNS-dom is insane. > >Totally insane. In fact, technically preposterous, which is what Paul >Vixie, Dave Crocker and a large number of other people have been >valiantly trying to explain for a very long period of time. Forgive me >for being facetious, but are their arguments finally getting through to >you? > >Also, now that you've admitted this insanity, can you please explain why >you are expending extraordinary amounts of energy defending it? Because the IAHC model is worse. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 01:42 PM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote: > >"Richard J. Sexton" writes: >> I'm waiting for the one frmo IEFT where they make their (DNS >> expansion plans and/or process) known. > >The IAB already stated that they support the gTLD MoU. Thats as clear >as you are going to get. > >Perry IAB != IETF IAB ~= ISOC I said IETF, Perry. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 12:40 PM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >At 11:46 AM 5/29/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: >> >>Once again, I think you have mistaken me with someone else. Besides, >>press releases ARE a valid method of shaping public opinion and getting >>users to test your system. >This is entirely true. The formation of eDNS was a direct >result of the final IAHC proposal, a proposal that was admittedly >outside of the traditional IETF process. It was also a proposal >that effectively confiscated someone else property. Both eDNS ans IAHC spewe forth a number of press releases. I'm waiting for the one frmo IEFT where they make their (DNS expansion plans and/or process) known. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

2 1

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jay＠Iperdome.com 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 11:46 AM 5/29/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote: > >Once again, I think you have mistaken me with someone else. Besides, >press releases ARE a valid method of shaping public opinion and getting >users to test your system. Perhaps if draft-postel had never been >pulled out of legitimate channels none of this would have happened. This is entirely true. The formation of eDNS was a direct result of the final IAHC proposal, a proposal that was admittedly outside of the traditional IETF process. It was also a proposal that effectively confiscated someone else property. I know that I'll be flamed because I said someone elses "property!" In actuallity, it was something that people invested time, money and developed a brand name in. More importantly, the IAHC proposal was counter to a long standing Internet tradition to *not* break existing working code. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

1 0

Re: Changing the Rules...
by smd＠clock.org 29 May '97

29 May '97

Marc Hurst <mhurst(a)fastlane.ca> writes: > The Canadian government had zero input in the selection of the University > of British Columbia having this authority. This will come as a large surprise to a few people who are or used to be at the DND and the NRC, I guess. > Jon Postel told us when we asked that as long as John > Demco is in that office he will have the registry. Good. John Demco and I had some arguments in the past and we don't see entirely eye-to-eye on some issues, but he's basically sound, and I can't think of anyone in Canada better suited to the task of having overall responsibility for CA-DOM. Sean.

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 08:11 AM 5/29/97 -0700, you wrote: >mr. wolodkin, > >it is not possible to support multiple public sets of root name servers. >the DNS protocol does not support it. BIND does not support it. what >happens when you try is called "cachaphony." It's physically possible. Just because you don't approve of it doesn't make it impossible. The set of servers popularly called the "legacy" roots wer once the only set. When Kashpureff first began alternic, the legacy roots were now a subset, or, Alternic roots were a superset. At any rate, they've been running for a year, and do work. YOu have an odd sense of "not possible" and I suspect you are speaking to either the political or financial layers of the protocol stack, not one of the underltying ones. >anyone who tries is harming the public internet user population with only >their own gain (usually psychological, sometimes monetary) as justification. >i call these people "pirates" and i mean it in the same sense as i would >call you a pirate if you decided to broadcast on one of my local television >channels since you thought your programming was better. depending on radiuses >i could get (a) a signal i didn't want or (b) a mixture of crap and no signal >at all. Cable. Direct satellite. Yout TV dial of 2 - 13 is obsolete Paul. >there is no justification for eDNS, alterNIC, or any of these other pirates. >they are in this for foolish and destructive reasons. In your opinion, which is hardly neutral. Your better idea is ? >DNS is a coherent, distributed, reliable database. with one set of roots. This was true two years ago, but not any more. >i am not impressed with your apologist role here. Show me the RFC that says "you can't do something on the net unless Paul is impressed". -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 10:44 AM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most >people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within >the IETF process. If they want to change things and follow the procedure >that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince >people of the validity of their ideas. Eugene Kashpureff has made a point to be at every IETF meeting since this Jihad started over a year ago, plus other conferences applicable (such as the Boston governence conference) IETF has always held the position that this is a policy issue and IETF deals with technology. At IETF San Jose, my nuderstanding is they thought Eugene should move forward with .alt in recognition of the work he had done, and take it from there. Along came IAHC and the shit hit the fan. >If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established >system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and >fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for >years, then they are indeed pirates. I would like to point out that going >through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted. More >ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted. If IETF expects to have a role in this, they'd bett at least pretend to be interested. It may be too late now what with governments, lawyers and ad hoc organizations. If they were to moderate this mess and take an active leadership rold, I can think of no better outcome. They would need the willingness to do this and some (poeple) resources to throw at it. Ball in your court. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

2 1