On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 9:47 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: @ Just to be clear for anyone who is actually doing something useful with @ their time and has not been following the DNS issues, the self styled @ 'eDNS' is in the process of collapsing and Jim is doing his best to @ spin-doctor it into an "evolution". I feel sorry for any of the poor souls @ who actually gave those people money, or worse tried to build a business @ based on it. @ @ ---> Phil @ @ Phil, You may want to go back to Biology 101 and take another peek in that microscope. As you will note, when cells divide there is a moment of tension and then voila, there are two identical copies. [Note: the organism does not die when this occurs, it often becomes stronger.] If you are following the evolution, you will see that some of the Registration Authorities (RAs) have decided to fund their own Root Name Server Confederation. They are independent of the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation and it appears that their confederation is going to be called "uDNS". The evolution of Root Name Server Confederations is very much like the world of "peering agreements". It is sort of ironic that everyone involved in this evolution seems to want the same thing, a stable, viable, and growing Internet. Because they want to have the freedom to work with the people they trust and enjoy working with, they can not all subscribe to a single "party line". As the evolution occurs, the organism grows stronger. It is always interesting to see spectators cheering for the organism to die. Maybe you can explain why you think that would be better than the current situation. @ @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: @ > @ > @ > The success of the DNS experiments that lead to @ > the commercial deployment of multiple Root Name @ > Server Confederations has resulted in an increased @ > awareness and education on the part of network @ > operators and members of the Registry Industry. @ > @ > It should not be surprising or disruptive that this @ > success will cause the continued growth and evolution @ > of Root Name Server Confederations. As some of you @ > may know, the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation @ > is about to evolve into what appears to be three distinct @ > Root Name Server Confederations. @ > @ > This evolution should increase the number of active Root @ > Name Server Confederations from 5 to 7. NANOG @ > subscribers that are following these events may want to @ > pay careful attention to the operational issues of these @ > evolutions because the fragile DNS does not always @ > self-correct. @ > @ > One of the benefits of the eDNS evolution is that one @ > of the new Root Name Server Confederations has @ > announced that it will take the new BIND 8.1 code @ > and use it as a base to evolve a new base of software that @ > can help address many of the lessons learned from the @ > extensive research done by leading edge, alternative, @ > DNS advocates. @ > @ > Since this research is not funded by the U.S. Government's @ > National Science Foundation (NSF) it may not be considered @ > by some to be valid or of any value. No matter where you @ > stand on that issue, you should at least know that it @ > exists. @ > @ > -- @ > Jim Fleming @ > Unir Corporation @ > http://www.Unir.Corp @ > @ > @ > @ > @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp
Okay, I can't resist going one more round. Be warned. Hit delete now. Jim Fleming supposedly said:
On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 9:47 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote: @ Just to be clear for anyone who is actually doing something useful with @ their time and has not been following the DNS issues, the self styled @ 'eDNS' is in the process of collapsing and Jim is doing his best to @ spin-doctor it into an "evolution". I feel sorry for any of the poor souls @ who actually gave those people money, or worse tried to build a business @ based on it. @ @ ---> Phil @ @
Phil,
You may want to go back to Biology 101 and take another peek in that microscope. As you will note, when cells divide there is a moment of tension and then voila, there are two identical copies. [Note: the organism does not die when this occurs, it often becomes stronger.]
True. But when an ax chops the head off of a chicken there is a moment of tension and the voila, there are two pieces, one runs around for a little bit spewing blood and then collapses. [Note: the organism does indeed die when this occurs, it often becomes dinner.]
If you are following the evolution, you will see that some of the Registration Authorities (RAs) have decided to fund their own Root Name Server Confederation. They are independent of the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation and it appears that their confederation is going to be called "uDNS".
Yes, and according to one of the founders, they are scrambling like mad to try and pull the remains back together. (I deleted the message already or I would have quoted it) It remains to be seen if they are like a cell or like a chicken.
The evolution of Root Name Server Confederations is very much like the world of "peering agreements".
Not it is not.
It is sort of ironic that everyone involved in this evolution seems to want the same thing, a stable, viable, and growing Internet. Because they want to have the freedom to work with the people they trust and enjoy working with, they can not all subscribe to a single "party line". As the evolution occurs, the organism grows stronger.
It depends on the type of evolution. There are plenty of evolutionary paths that lead to extinction, in fact most do. There is usually only a small percentage of evolutionary steps that lead to something better and to stretch the analogy to the limit, I don't believe the eDNS or your Root Nameserver Confederations produce an evolution that is better.
It is always interesting to see spectators cheering for the organism to die. Maybe you can explain why you think that would be better than the current situation.
When I see any creature that is dying slowly and painfully, yes I would like to see it put out of its misery since the conclusion is inevitable. To use the analogy above, the axe has only half cut off the chickens head and now it is running around squawking and making a racket. It would have been cleaner to have cut the head off completely. It would certainly have been quieter. ---> Phil
participants (2)
-
Jim Fleming -
Philip J. Nesser II