On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
1. Security ("man-in-the-middle").
VPNs, SSH tunnels, etc. There are ways to solve this problem.
You would use a VPN or SSH tunnel to do what? That's orthogonal to DNS security issues, and illustrates that you haven't read DNSSEC and/or 2826.
2. Common interoperability.
We do not currently have common interoperability for a whole range of protocols.
So what? DNS is one of the protocols where interoperability is not just desirable, it's MANDATORY. Businesses and individuals expect that when they publish an e-mail or Web site hostname, that it be theirs and only theirs no matter where on the Internet it is accessed. FQDNs are considered fixed points of entry, and alternate roots put that name resolution at risk. (But if you had actually read RFC2826, you would already understand this.) Client side users, conversely, expect that published addresses by businesses or individuals go to the intended party. (But if you had actually read RFC2826, you would already understand this.) Introducing fragmented TLDs or the opportunity to supplant the common TLDs places the DNS infrastructure at risk. This is not just FUD -- DNS hijacking in alternate roots has already happened. (But if you had actually read RFC2826, you would already understand this.)
3. *Common sense.* [Erm, oh yeah, perhaps I shouldn't feed the troll. After all, this is the same guy who thinks that resurrecting the long dead concept of source routed e-mail is scalable.]
Since when did the NANOG mailing list become your personal venue for flinging personal insults at other list members?
Nope, not personal -- it's just good to make sure a troll is properly labeled as such. You know, like how cigarettes have bad-for-your-health warnings.
For the record, I have never suggested that source-routing is a good idea for email nor have I ever suggested that source-routing is scalable.
Okay, then, "forced arbitration" (which is interchangeably equivalent to source routing if the arbitrators handle the mail as it transits). Either way, it's been done and doesn't scale, and you didn't get the point (in the same manner that your stubborn ignorance is preventing you from understanding the basic tenets of DNS), so the troll label fits.
You really should read RFC2826 sometime. It's quite short, as RFCs go.
I have read it
In one eye and out the other, perhaps? I wonder why I have such a hard time believing this, considering that I've more or less rehashed its major points right here.
and I appreciate the IAB's comments, but it was written at a time when we didn't have as much experience with rootless networks as we do now.
The DNS is not a rootless network, so this is a pointless comment. On the flip side, there was quite a bit of experience with alternate DNS roots at the time RFC2826 was created -- AlterNIC, which was run and advocated by people just as blinded by ignorance as you. Oh wait, your name wouldn't *actually* be Jim Fleming, would it? -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>