Some just try a little harder than others... On Wed, 28 May 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the control of RIPE and it is located in London, England.

fiction.

there are some root name servers.

then there are some pirates who are trying to coin the "confederation" term.

On Wed, 28 May 1997 21:10:29 -0400 (EDT), Ben wrote:

marc, get this off nanog already you fucking kook.

thank you, ben

Hey, we could use you over on uDNS-flamers, you and Marc could even be on the same team! <grin> Take care, Ron --------- To subscribe, send the text: subscribe udns-flamers <YourFirstName> <YourLastName> to: listserver@starfire.douglas.ma.us

Vince Wolodkin supposedly said:

Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

...

P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the control of RIPE and it is located in London, England.

fiction.

there are some root name servers.

then there are some pirates who are trying to coin the "confederation" term.

Mr Vixie,

I realize your exasperation with certain elements that have arisen in this "new age" of the internet. Many of them ARE in it for the money. Of course, you realize, that this was bound to happen. Any successful non-profit venture will ultimately have people trying to make money off of it. It's not illegal, though piracy is.

While you disagree with the "confederation" ideas that Mr. Fleming espouses, calling he and others pirates is rather ridiculous. If you were involved in an IETF proceeding and someone presented an alternate idea, would you call them pirates?

Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within the IETF process. If they want to change things and follow the procedure that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince people of the validity of their ideas. If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for years, then they are indeed pirates. I would like to point out that going through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted. More ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted.

It's time you faced it, though you and others may have put a great deal of work into building what the internet has become, so have many others. It doesn't mean that it belongs to you. It doesn't mean that people who are trying to build something now are pirates.

The grandstanders have chosen to work outside of the IETF process and are trying to build something. There are a couple of reasons why they could want to do it that way: 1. They are impatient and don't want to work through established channels. 2. They don't believe working through the established channels is legitimate. 3. They have tried and their ideas were rejected. If 1. then they need to learn some patients and cooperation. If 2. then we disagree and will not agree for the forseeable future. If 3. then either: a) they were right and everyone else was wrong and in a few months or years it will be clear. b) they have some other motive, whether it be greed or glory or power or something else I don't know. If a) then we will have to see. If b) which is what I suspect, then I don't repect the motives and once again I doubt we will agree anytime in the future.

I really can't tell why you are so upset about all of this. I am guessing that you don't want to see the internet fall to ruins because a bunch of newcomers with "radical" ideas want to change things. You may even be a little bit afraid that some of them might succeed. But why is their input LESS valuable than yours, and who are you to make this judgement?

All people who come to the IETF, come as individuals and their opinions start out counting the same. As with all things, your actions and words over the years tend to add or subtract to the value people place on them. People tend to respect people who have made positive contributions or have strong technical arguements, and ignore people who make no contributions or whose ideas lack technical merit.

I'll probably get flamed off the planet for siding with the "interlopers", perhaps cries of "burn the witch" will follow me. Then again, wasn't there a time when those who thought that the earth orbited the sun killed for their blasphemy?

A completely pointless statement to your arguement. It is easy to label yourself the martyr and how everyone else is wrong, but it doesn't win any points.

Take a good look in the mirror and decide, do you want to work with others or do you want to dictate to others? Then please let us know, we may need to ignore you in the future.

Paul and everyone else who does work in the IETF work constantly with others to keep the Internet functioning. If you expect to work with people then you need to step up and join the effort. The feeling I get is that since you don't like the structure of the team you want to run off and form your own team and call the other people antisocial for not abandoning the current process and embracing yours. If you want to effect change then step up and try to do it legitimately instead of trying to do it with press releases. Even Microsoft tried to bully the IETF process and had tough times because of it. Now they send numerous people to the IETF and contribute to the effort.

Vince Wolodkin

---> Phil

On Thu, May 29, 1997 at 10:44:28AM -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:

Vince Wolodkin supposedly said:

...

Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

...

P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the control of RIPE and it is located in London, England.

fiction.

there are some root name servers.

then there are some pirates who are trying to coin the "confederation" term.

Mr Vixie,

I realize your exasperation with certain elements that have arisen in this "new age" of the internet. Many of them ARE in it for the money. Of course, you realize, that this was bound to happen. Any successful non-profit venture will ultimately have people trying to make money off of it. It's not illegal, though piracy is.

While you disagree with the "confederation" ideas that Mr. Fleming espouses, calling he and others pirates is rather ridiculous. If you were involved in an IETF proceeding and someone presented an alternate idea, would you call them pirates?

Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within the IETF process. If they want to change things and follow the procedure that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince people of the validity of their ideas.

If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for years, then they are indeed pirates. I would like to point out that going through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted. More ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted.

The IAHC was not done within the IETF process. There is no RFC which was promoted to either a BCP or Internet Standard defining their work. That was ENTIRELY a private decision and done outside of the IETF process. Those who live in glass houses....

---> Phil

-- -- 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

Dave Crocker wrote:

At 9:32 AM -0700 5/29/97, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

The IAHC was not done within the IETF process. There is no RFC which was promoted to either a BCP or Internet Standard defining their work.

Once again, I do commend to folks that they learn about the IETF process. The IETF does not dictate procedures or administration for the operational Internet. It does not participate in the development or execution of those procedures. The IETF specifies technical standards. The documents known as "best current practise" represent efforts to characterize methods of using those standards, rather than methods of running the Internet.

Perhaps you should check RFC2026. It became a BCP right around the same time that the IAHC started preaching. It seems to indicate that you are mistaken. Perhaps it is you who should learn about the NEW IETF process. 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical specifications for hardware and software required for computer communication across interconnected networks. However, since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the community's view of that issue. Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards Process and is published as a BCP. Vince WOlodkin

-------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com

Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org

Dave Crocker wrote:

At 12:19 PM -0700 5/29/97, Vince Wolodkin wrote:

...

Perhaps you should check RFC2026. It became a BCP right around the same

Indeed. Now, perhaps, your lengthy quoting of the standards document seems to you to provide patently obvious indication that BCPs pertain to administration and operation of the running Internet. It doesn't.

To the extent that you feel otherwise, please quote that text specifically. To the extent that you think that "standardize practices and the results of community deliberations" is that meaningful statement, you need to try harder, since such language has always been used and it has never covered what you now want to claim.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overload your circuits. Paragraph 2 of my quoting is the relevant part, specifically sentences 2 and 3. To quote "good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building"

In any even, the IETF has shown no interest in covering this topic. To the extent you think otherwise, you need to document the claim.

I think I just did.

...

mistaken. Perhaps it is you who should learn about the NEW IETF process.

Vince, nice to see you keep this on a high level of reasoned debate.

Just returning your volley. It is you who continually recommend that others "learn the process", I thought it only fair to indicate that even you might need to learn a few things. I don't think anyone can be expected to stay on top of all the syntactic nuances of every RFC, so I promise to stop if you will.

Thank you for playing.

Always a pleasure.

d/

-------------------- Dave Crocker

Vince Wolodkin

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Vince Wolodkin wrote:

It's time you faced it, though you and others may have put a great deal of work into building what the internet has become, so have many others. It doesn't mean that it belongs to you. It doesn't mean that people who are trying to build something now are pirates.

No. It means that people who try to take a public resource and make it a private cash cow ARE pirates. I challenge you to show one email, any email (or any other verifiable piece of info) anywhere in which Paul has claimed to own the net.

even be a little bit afraid that some of them might succeed. But why is their input LESS valuable than yours, and who are you to make this judgement?

He isn't. The Internet community is, and that community probably values Paul's input because of his track record and his demonstrable talent and insight into issues :)

Take a good look in the mirror and decide, do you want to work with others or do you want to dictate to others? Then please let us know, we may need to ignore you in the future.

Ignore whomever you choose to ignore. I think you'll find that Paul (and others, certainly) are concerned with working inside a framework which is most beneficial to the Internet community at large. DNS pirates like the eDNS/uDNS/AlterNIC crowd are not, thay're interested in producing a perception of power and a stream of revenue for themselves.

Paul A Vixie wrote:

mr. wolodkin,

it is not possible to support multiple public sets of root name servers. the DNS protocol does not support it. BIND does not support it. what happens when you try is called "cachaphony."

I know that you are the "God of BIND", but yet I don't trust anyone who tells me something is impossible. If you would have said impractical, or unfeasible, or explained somehow why you feel it's not possible, then I might agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think I have seen any draft RFCs from Mr. Fleming stating how this would be possible. Jim, if you feel this is possible, why not draft an RFC stating how. "Put up or shut up" might be appropriate at this time.

anyone who tries is harming the public internet user population with only their own gain (usually psychological, sometimes monetary) as justification. i call these people "pirates" and i mean it in the same sense as i would call you a pirate if you decided to broadcast on one of my local television channels since you thought your programming was better. depending on radiuses i could get (a) a signal i didn't want or (b) a mixture of crap and no signal at all.

there is no justification for eDNS, alterNIC, or any of these other pirates. they are in this for foolish and destructive reasons.

DNS is a coherent, distributed, reliable database. with one set of roots. if you don't like that you should start by changing the speed of light since i'm sure you don't like "C" either. and if E=MC**2 bothers you i think that you should change it as well. and if you want PI to equal 3, just wish and your wishing will make it so. says so right here on the label.

i am not impressed with your apologist role here.

As I am not impressed with your vindictive role. I unlike you and others find myself in no camp at all. I see value in parts from all sides. Perhaps rather than criticizing you could, as I did above, invite Mr. Fleming to draft an RFC specifying his confederations theories and the changes necessary to DNS and BIND to support it. I don't care whether people are impressed with me or not, perhaps you should take this tack. You can get a lot more done if you aren't trying to impress everyone all of the time.

paul vixie

Vince Wolodkin