Greg A. Woods <woods@weird.com> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 4:25 AM (AEST)
[ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 03:38:54 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ]
Subject: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@civicnet.org> wrote:
For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that everyone use the same root servers.
Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD.
Obviously you haven't got a friggin clue about how the DNS works either technically or politically.
Hi Greg Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to this list. And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view. The argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to be a leading expert on the internet. I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system administration. As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments. They seem rather well thought out to me. Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own. It includes secure operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures with Cisco Systems. You will find it described at http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/karl.html
Read what the man said: "Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into chaos."
They might. Then again they might not. Depends who's in charge.
Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain systems on the market. He argues:
"The Internet works because of common protocols. The DNS protocol depends for its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root."
He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts."
Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") root.
Now look who's reading between the lines! He explicitly did not say "ICANN roots". There's no need for ICANN to control the root servers, and indeed they don't really do so now. All that matters is that there can only be one true authoritative set of root servers for the public DNS.
You're the one reading between the lines. I didn't say anything about "control". Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root". Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots". It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures. Regards Patrick Corliss
-- Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>