eDNS - Temporary Freeze

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

2

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?

3

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

4

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.

No argument. It's pretty simple to look at an SOA and figure out where the
. zone comes from.

> 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.

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