Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
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
At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/97, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
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
It's difficult to be careful in using language, isn't it? For example, I never have said that IANA "owns" the DNS. I said it has administrative authority for it. The DNS is a public resource and IANA oversees it. IANA operates based on general community consensus. This is what has always been true and continues to be true. There's no vacilation or ambiguity in this. Never has been.
There was once a time when the entire Internet accepted IANA's authotiry.
Except for the few pirates, the entire Internet still does.
And failed, being rejected by: US GOV't NSI Major ISP's Author of the DNS itself
Richard, it's difficult to be careful in using language, isn't it? * The effort has not been rejected by the US government. * Having NSI take an antagonistic role is hardly noteworthy, given that they are desperately trying to preserve their windfall revenue stream. * While you claim rejection by major ISPs (I seem to recall only one that is openly negative) you fail to mention that it is also supported by major ISPs. * As to the author of the DNS, Paul often takes critical positions but I'm not aware of his taking a specific stance against the IAHC plan.
which is enough to render it useless.
How easily you ignore the many and diverse signatories.
Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise
You seem to forget that that is exactly what the IAHC was. After 2 years of failed effort, IANA asked the IAHC to formulate a compromise plan. We did. It is now being implemented. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@imc.org Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org
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? [BTW, I see we now have another "island of DNS-dom", now that our good friend Karl has thrown away the Old, Bad eDNS (the Baaaaad eDNS) and reconstituted a shining, new eDNS: the New, Good and Right eDNS who undoubtedly offer a fair deal to all. As long as KD is in the driver's seat, of course.] Nick
Nick Hilliard writes:
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?
[BTW, I see we now have another "island of DNS-dom", now that our good friend Karl has thrown away the Old, Bad eDNS (the Baaaaad eDNS) and reconstituted a shining, new eDNS: the New, Good and Right eDNS who undoubtedly offer a fair deal to all. As long as KD is in the driver's seat, of course.]
You've forgotten the uDNS, the AlterNIC, and all the rest of the bestiary of creatures from the medieval Book of Hours. Bodes really well for the stability of all those systems, right? Perry Speaking personally and not in any official capacity
On Thu, 29 May 1997 14:30:06 -0400, Perry wrote:
[BTW, I see we now have another "island of DNS-dom", now that our good friend Karl has thrown away the Old, Bad eDNS (the Baaaaad eDNS) and reconstituted a shining, new eDNS: the New, Good and Right eDNS who undoubtedly offer a fair deal to all. As long as KD is in the driver's seat, of course.]
You've forgotten the uDNS,
And uDNS is(!) the continuation of eDNS, as Karl resigned and removed his name from the charter... Take care, Ron Kimball for the uDNS council
On Thu, May 29, 1997 at 07:11:00PM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 1997 14:30:06 -0400, Perry wrote:
[BTW, I see we now have another "island of DNS-dom", now that our good friend Karl has thrown away the Old, Bad eDNS (the Baaaaad eDNS) and reconstituted a shining, new eDNS: the New, Good and Right eDNS who undoubtedly offer a fair deal to all. As long as KD is in the driver's seat, of course.]
You've forgotten the uDNS,
And uDNS is(!) the continuation of eDNS, as Karl resigned and removed his name from the charter...
Take care, Ron Kimball for the uDNS council
No its not. uDNS does not embody nor support the eDNS charter. It therefore is an entirely different animal, albiet composed of people who (some would argue) never did uphold the document they signed anyway. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
On Thu, 29 May 1997 14:41:02 -0500, Karl wrote:
You've forgotten the uDNS, And uDNS is(!) the continuation of eDNS, as Karl resigned and removed his name from the charter...
No its not.
uDNS does not embody nor support the eDNS charter. It therefore is an entirely different animal, albiet composed of people who (some would argue) never did uphold the document they signed anyway.
We are eDNS minus those who resigned (only you, so far?). We are discussing whether we want to continue evolving the charter and establishing written operational policies, or to break with the whole thing and start from a different premise. As you are shutting down the eDNS discussion lists tonight, we have established replacements (Folks, email me for details). We are also in the process of replacing those other resources that you are leaving with... Take care, Ron Kimball for the uDNS council
On Thu, May 29, 1997 at 08:03:18PM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 1997 14:41:02 -0500, Karl wrote:
You've forgotten the uDNS, And uDNS is(!) the continuation of eDNS, as Karl resigned and removed his name from the charter...
No its not.
uDNS does not embody nor support the eDNS charter. It therefore is an entirely different animal, albiet composed of people who (some would argue) never did uphold the document they signed anyway.
We are eDNS minus those who resigned (only you, so far?). We are discussing whether we want to continue evolving the charter and establishing written operational policies, or to break with the whole thing and start from a different premise. As you are shutting down the eDNS discussion lists tonight, we have established replacements (Folks, email me for details). We are also in the process of replacing those other resources that you are leaving with...
Take care, Ron Kimball for the uDNS council
This is simply not true. You have posted a set of operational rules, currently under discussion, which bear as much resemblance to the charter as a Dog does to a Cat (they're both animals, but that's about it). Further, see my announcement posted just now. The *ENTIRE* set of root servers which made eDNS possible has resigned and will be forming a new coalition at 12:01 AM tomorrow. As such I'd say that the charter is dead and gone, as the people who had to be there to implement it no longer are. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
participants (6)
-
Dave Crocker -
hostmaster＠starfire.douglas.ma.us -
Karl Denninger -
Nick Hilliard -
Perry E. Metzger -
Richard J. Sexton