I wrote:
@ Jim Fleming's so called "Root Server Council" is @ an insult to our intelligence.
Someone wrote me and asked:
As a root name server operator, where do you stand on the following issues ?
===============
1. What are the confederations common guidelines on name syntax ? - One letter TLDs ? - Two letter TLDs ? - Dashes ? - Plurals ?
There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I have no position on the above issues. Every zone has an owner, and every zone has some number of operators. The owner of "." is the IANA, and you should direct questions about TLDs (which have to be entered into ".") to the owner of the "." zone, which is the IANA. I believe that the IANA has a reasonable confidence level in the IAHC, and would be likely to simply refer your questions to the Council of Registrars.
2. How will the confederations be "synced" ? (i.e. How will they exchange info on which TLDs they support ?)
There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I will publish whatever "." zone the IANA directs me to publish. Synchronization of "." servers is currently accomplished via AXFR (see RFC 1035).
3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD will all Confederations agree to use the same TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ?
See above. There is no confederation. Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:
That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled by NSI.
This is true.
If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly. But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH. NSI has never, ever, ever, ever made a change to any of the domains it publishes for other parties, except where asked to do so my the owner of the domain in question. So for example, whenever the IANA recognizes a new server for a TLD, it sends mail to the current InterNIC contractor asking that the "." zone be changed to reflect this. And when NIC.MIL changes an SLD delegation under _its_ domain, it sends the current InterNIC contractor mail asking that this change be made. And when Vixie Enterprises wants to change a second level delegation under COM (adding or deleting a name server at VIX.COM for example), we send mail to the current InterNIC contractor asking that this be done. The current InterNIC contractor gets _so_many_ such requests that it even has e-mailable templates which are robotically processed. The previous NIC contractor (SRI) used to accept change requests in postal mail, facsimile, or even (gasp!) by telephone.
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 08:58:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:
Balderdash. They are not misleading Paul. They are completely factual. That you don't LIKE them is irrelavent.
That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled by NSI.
This is true.
Yep.
If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly. But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.
What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's .WEB and not the IAHCs. A defacto checkmate, as it were. Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or yours for that matter. The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host. The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM) that removes COM from its control? Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation? -- -- 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 Sun, 4 May 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM) that removes COM from its control?
Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?
Where does NSI get the idea that it can abscond with the database it developped under contract when the contractor is the U.S. government. The fat lady ain't singin' yet, Karl. Why don't we all just sit back and enjoy the show? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush
At 06:56 04 05 97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 08:58:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public
statements:
Balderdash. They are not misleading Paul. They are completely factual. That you don't LIKE them is irrelavent.
Mislead \Mis*lead"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Misled; p. pr. & vb. n. Misleading.] [AS. misl?dan. See Mis-, and Lead to conduct.] To lead into a wrong way or path; to lead astray; to guide into error; to cause to mistake; to deceive. Notice that nowhere in that definition does it mention the use of anything but facts. Misleading, in fact, is generally interpreted to be using facts to lead someone into thinking something that is not a fact. Which is what you seem to spend most of your time doing, Karl.
That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled by NSI.
This is true.
Yep.
If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings
No argument. It's pretty simple to look at an SOA and figure out where the . zone comes from. they
could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly. But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.
Karl's entire argument is based on the premise that these pigs _might_ have wings and _might_ fly if they had them. There are laws against pigs sprouting wings in this country, and if said pigs did indeed sprout wings and attempt to fly, the US Government would shoot them out of the sky and make pork chops. Hmm.. I'm hungry now..
What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's .WEB and not the IAHCs.
And the IANA (and/or NSF) would promptly ask the root server operators to change where they retreived the root zone from. Once that was done, they would sue NSI for every penny they had. You see, NSI has a contract with the NSF that explicitly states that NSI gets its orders from the NSF and IANA. If they do something without the NSF's permission, they are in breach of contract (look it up if you don't know the term). I won't even mention what would happen if the NSA or the MILnet decided that US national security would be affected by NSI changing something that is vital to the proper functioning of DNS inside and outside of the military.
A defacto checkmate, as it were.
Yes, the US Government would certainly checkmate NSI. Good point.
Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or yours for that matter.
NSI can offer whatever zone it wants. The root servers, on the other hand, will always offer what the IANA decides.
The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.
NSI may or may not own the servers. That is totally unrelated to whether or not they own the data contained in those servers, or if it even matters who owns it. If NSI changed the root zone and demanded Mr. Vixie take the changes since they owned the hardware, I'm confident Mr. Vixie would give them the machine back and find another machine to run his root server on.
The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM) that removes COM from its control?
Again, if NSI doesn't fulfill its part of the contract, there will be a lot of financial, legal, and other problems for NSI. The rest of the world, however, will see things the IANA's way.
Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?
It's called a court. If you are unaware of what breach of contract is, perhaps you need to take a few law classes. Stephen
I want to clear up one point.
If NSI changed the root zone and demanded Mr. Vixie take the changes since they owned the hardware, I'm confident Mr. Vixie would give them the machine back and find another machine to run his root server on.
The agreement I signed with NSI upon delivery of their server iron to PAIX was that I would return it on demand, maintain it in good working order, and maintain fire insurance (which is some kind of leasing requirement). That's all. Now as to the truth of the above assertion. If NSI decided to become a DNS pirate (that is, if they ever ignore a request from the IANA), and then they asked me to participate in this piracy, and they tried to use the fact that they are making lease payments on the F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET iron as some kind of leverage, I would treat them as I treat all DNS pirates: with contempt; they would sink beneath my notice; I would think of them as "like Karl and Jim and Eugene"; I would quietly wait for instructions from the IANA as to what to do next; I would send NSI's hardware back to them upon request, per my agreement with them. As a lot of the people who have paid my way over the years can tell you, money is my *enabler* but never my *determiner*. I will do the right thing, and I've been lucky enough to have a number of people and companies use their money so that that "right thing" can be a broader swath than I could do alone. It appears that when someone pays Karl, he does whatever they want him to do, irrespective of Karl's own ethics (if any.) Karl has projected this attitude on me and on others here for many years, and has never been able to understand that most other people are not like him in this way.
What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's .WEB and not the IAHCs.
I guess that would be up to the IANA. If NSI ignored the IANA's wishes (recall that the IAHC is the result of an IANA plan) and started editing IANA's "." zone without authorization, I would expect the IANA to send mail to the root name server operators saying "please fetch the root zone from somewhere else". This is pretty unlikely -- the current InterNIC contractor knows full well that ".", MIL, GOV, and EDU are owned by others. (I believe that this was the sense of their answer to PGPMedia, too.)
A defacto checkmate, as it were.
This would be more like NSI deciding to take its own king off the board. Since they stand to make truckloads of money as an IAHC shared registry, this seems like it would be a really stupid thing for them to do, Tom Newell's recent idiotic comments notwithstanding.
Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or yours for that matter.
Once again this would be up to the IANA.
The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.
The current InterNIC contractor doesn't control the content of my server, but they do tend to act as a coordinating resource. I guarantee that if the owner of the MIL, GOV, EDU, or "." zones sent mail to the root name server operators asking that these zones be pulled from a new source, it would be done by the next maintainance interval. The IANA is a special case -- while they have delegated COM, ORG and NET to the current InterNIC contractor, IANA has the right to redelegate them to someone else. So the fact is, *all* TLD's come from the IANA. It's just that some of them come from the IETF (RFC1591 et al) and some come from the UN (ISO 3166) and some will apparently be coming from the IAHC (WEB, REC, et al). The current InterNIC contractor did send me some hardware, it's true. But, since you keep harping on it, I'm going to send it all back and use my own. I consider buying a 1GB alpha to be inconvenient but it won't kill me.
The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM) that removes COM from its control?
Odds: 1 in 1. There is no contest here.
Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?
My directions to the industry aren't about money. It turns out that everyone who has followed my directions over the years has made more money because of that -- but it's measured in dollars per decade rather than dollars per month. I'm not particularly concerned about my directions' reputation for quality.
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:
What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's .WEB and not the IAHCs.
I guess that would be up to the IANA. If NSI ignored the IANA's wishes (recall that the IAHC is the result of an IANA plan) and started editing IANA's "." zone without authorization, I would expect the IANA to send mail to the root name server operators saying "please fetch the root zone from somewhere else". This is pretty unlikely -- the current InterNIC contractor knows full well that ".", MIL, GOV, and EDU are owned by others. (I believe that this was the sense of their answer to PGPMedia, too.)
You know, all this talk about the Internet and DNS zones and who owns them has lead me to believe that really, the US government should stay the hell out of it. The US government originally "owned" what used to be ARPAnet... the days of ARPAnet are long gone and I don't see what right the US government has to meddle in any of this. Yes, the NSF funded at one point a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they somehow have the right to take it back. Heck, the NSF funds a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they own it. Just because the government funds say the FDIC, doesn't mean they own all banks, the same is true with InterNIC. How many people out there really want a government regulated Internet? First it's root zones, then it's dark fiber, pretty soon its the bits and bytes flowing through routers and before you know it, Uncle Sam says you can't swear while on IRC because a minor may be listening. What I'm trying to convey here is that the US government doesn't own the Internet any longer, nor does any other goverment on this planet. The people run it. Now, I agree that if InterNIC was doing a bad job, they should be replaced... but they aren't. Sure, they have their rough weeks, and sometimes it is hard to get ahold of them. Now, 15 years ago, the IANA might have been in the position to delgate such power, but today... the Internet is radically different, and the contract between InterNIC & IANA should be void because the IANA doesn't *OWN* DNS any more. The US government doesn't *OWN* the Internet therefore control over the root zone shouldn't be relinquished to them. So what should happen? We all agree that COM zone is so full that its hard to manage all the disputes over domains and what not. Personally, I believe that InterNIC should still do all registrations and handle all aspects of updating and maintaining databases, but I believe that InterNIC should be regulated by some sort of committee to oversee changes in policy. This committee would be elected or appointed, whatever is in the best interest of the people. I guess my idea differs from most as it doesn't involve much change. The committee would be in power to change what TLDs there were, but not to actually implement them. InterNIC would be the people who implement these new policies, and take care of maintaining them. This sounds like the perfect plan to me. Everyone is happy. InterNIC still has it's business in tact, and the people have their method of deciding what new TLD's, etc should go into effect. Ah well, just an idea. Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
participants (6)
-
Jordan Mendelson -
Karl Denninger -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
randy＠psg.com -
Stephen Sprunk