In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103131010030.41040-100000@localhost>, Patrick Greenw ell writes:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available?
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I disagree -- there were *no* political discussions. But that's an unverifiable assertion. Instead, could you point at anything in the document you perceive as "political" rather than technical? To be precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the document? Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against the will of the web page designers. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I disagree -- there were *no* political discussions. But that's an unverifiable assertion. Instead, could you point at anything in the document you perceive as "political" rather than technical?
The fact that there currently exists several different operations root server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact, if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC root servers. To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head. Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when the IAB formulated this document? Please understand that I am not accusing you personally of playing politics, as I don't know you or what motivates you, however it appears that given the preexistence and continuing operation of alternative root server networks, and the timing of this document(in the midst of the formation of ICANN and associated uncertainty surrounding the legacy structures(IANA, the root server operators, etc.)) that the document itself was political in nature. What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, especially given the timing?
To be precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the document?
Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against the will of the web page designers.
First, I didn't know that Internet address resolution was subject to the will of "web page designers." Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of any community would. My understanding through following the various mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always a little broken.)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:29:23 PST, Patrick Greenwell said:
To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.
Yes, and I can run an SMTP server that requires all input to be ROT13 encrypted, and it won't bring down the Internet. If 2-3% of the sites ran such SMTP servers, it wouldn't bring down the internet. If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing. Think this through - a foobar.com address is useful and desirable precisely because everybody agrees what it means. If your ISP uses a different root DNS than mine does, and as a result foobar.tvshow goes to one site for you, and someplace else for me, what have we won? Are we going to have to go back to %hacking domain names, such as: foobar.tvshow%ORSC, foobar.tvshow%MSN, foobar.tvshow%AOL, foobar.tvshow%ICANN, foobar.tvshow%pacificroot, foobar.tvshow%new.net, foobar.tvshow%name.space and so on?
Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when the IAB formulated this document?
I am *not* privy to IAB deliberations, but I'm fairly sure that they were painfully aware of their existence - the IAB doesn't issue documents in a vacuum. RFC2826 was issued because the IAB was aware if their existence. I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political". Upon careful re-reading it boils down to: If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like. If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask. How is this political? -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:29:23 PST, Patrick Greenwell said: I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political". Upon careful re-reading it boils down to:
If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
How is this political?
Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It cannot avoid being political (anymore). --- Computers hate being anthropomorphized.
Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It cannot avoid being political (anymore).
Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or ICANN explicitly referred to in that document. - Håvard
Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It cannot avoid being political (anymore).
Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or ICANN explicitly referred to in that document.
Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense.
- Håvard
Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It cannot avoid being political (anymore).
Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or ICANN explicitly referred to in that document.
Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense.
Well, obviously I disagree. It is my firm opinion that the people politically opposed to the ICANN/USG/pick-your-DNS-political-enemy are reading way too much between the lines in this document. I stand by my claim that the document is first and foremost technical in nature, and I wish those people claiming otherwise would actually go back and read the document and cite chapter and verse. Regards, - Håvard
Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense.
Well, obviously I disagree. It is my firm opinion that the people politically opposed to the ICANN/USG/pick-your-DNS-political-enemy are reading way too much between the lines in this document.
I stand by my claim that the document is first and foremost technical in nature, and I wish those people claiming otherwise would actually go back and read the document and cite chapter and verse.
2826 does not exist in a vacuum. You have to decide what it means in the context of the Internet as it exists today. ICANN and its supporters are interpreting it to mean one root to rule them all - the ICANN root. Why else would Esther Dyson suggest - perhaps in jest, perhaps not - that TLDs outside of the ICANN root should be made illegal? 2826 was intended to be technical in nature, but circumstances have changed since then.
Regards,
- Håvard
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:03:04PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing.
And so, either the businesses in the market would work out a way to standardize, or we'd live with it, like we do with the information on AOL that only it's users can access. Remember, the current roots are not mandated by law; anybody is free to not use them.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:29:23 PST, Patrick Greenwell said:
To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.
Yes, and I can run an SMTP server that requires all input to be ROT13 encrypted, and it won't bring down the Internet. If 2-3% of the sites ran such SMTP servers, it wouldn't bring down the internet.
If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing.
And do you believe that people would simply sit on their hands and lament the lack of interoperability?
If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
How is this political?
"...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming authority."
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-reading it boils down to:
If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
How is this political?
It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands. -Hank
Hi Hank In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular gTLD ... Regards Rafi On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-reading it boils down to:
If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
How is this political?
It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands.
-Hank
participants (8)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
Havard Eidnes -
Mike Batchelor -
Patrick Greenwell -
Rafi Sadowsky -
Shawn McMahon -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu