RE: How common is lack of DNS server diversity?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Good feed-back, thanks.

From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 2:34 PM

> <Root server> ::= Any DNS server that has final authority
for a <domain
> tier/level>;

Wouldn't a better term be "authoritative server"? It states
what it is,
and doesn't have the semantic overload of your use of "root server."

I agree, but the definitions were evolved from existing, not recreated. The
problem is that there are tiers of responsibility with in the LD and there
are many LDs. For example; UK has both the TLD and SLD as fixed and sells
registrations in the 3LD. AU also does this, but are considering opening up
the SLD for new registrations. We have two different authority layers here,
not just one. Also ml.org --> dhs.com, sells 3LDs in COM, how do we talk
about them, operationally?

Also authority, for any LD, is different than that for a zone. Yet, both
name servers will answer as authoritative. Even the software doesn't make a
distinction. Further, and here is where the semantics become difficult, what
do you call the final non-recursive authority vs. the authoritative
recursive resolving authority (and do you want to spell that definition out
10 times per paragraph)?

Unless, of course, you are in marketing in which case you
want semantic
overload such as Microsoft's use of "Digital Nervous System" (DNS) to
create confusion.

<g> ref Halloween I & II <g> But, that is yet another reason to further
refine the semantics... before MSFT does! IMHO, engineers who sneer at Mktg,
have no idea how much of their lives are ruled by it.

Root Server == An authoritative server for the "." (root) of
the domain
               name system

The problem is that we have more than one set of authoritative root servers
and one set includes the other. The current semantics do not allow that at
all. This is fine for the unified-root school, but the reality is that it
isn't the ONLY school and denial wont make the others go away.

TLD Server == An authoritative server for a Top Level Domain, such as
              the generic TLDs (COM, EDU, INT) and country
              code TLDs (CA, AU, ZA)

The problem is (as stated above), there are many authority layers beyond
that of the TLD. Yes, some of them are getting politisized (repeat what I
said about Mktg and double it).

The real danger is that a schism is developing in the semantics (between
Eng, Mtkg, and the politicians). This may be a pre-cursor to a schism at the
root-level itself. I would dearly like NOT to see that.

2

[ On Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 15:15:00 (-0800), Roeland Meyer wrote: ]

Subject: RE: How common is lack of DNS server diversity?

I agree, but the definitions were evolved from existing, not recreated. The
problem is that there are tiers of responsibility with in the LD and there
are many LDs. For example; UK has both the TLD and SLD as fixed and sells
registrations in the 3LD. AU also does this, but are considering opening up
the SLD for new registrations. We have two different authority layers here,
not just one. Also ml.org --> dhs.com, sells 3LDs in COM, how do we talk
about them, operationally?

That's all totally irrelevant and meaningless, especially to a basic
simple discussion of the technical workings of the DNS.

Also authority, for any LD, is different than that for a zone. Yet, both
name servers will answer as authoritative. Even the software doesn't make a
distinction. Further, and here is where the semantics become difficult, what
do you call the final non-recursive authority vs. the authoritative
recursive resolving authority (and do you want to spell that definition out
10 times per paragraph)?

Duh? What? Nonsense!

If a recursive nameserver answers authoritatively then it's broken!

If a registered nameserver does not answer authoritatively then it is
"lame".

If an authoritative nameserver answers recursive queries, then it's
likely in danger.

> Root Server == An authoritative server for the "." (root) of
> the domain
> name system

The problem is that we have more than one set of authoritative root servers
and one set includes the other. The current semantics do not allow that at
all. This is fine for the unified-root school, but the reality is that it
isn't the ONLY school and denial wont make the others go away.

What the heck are you talking about?!?!?!?!

As you say there's always only ever going to be just one set of
authoritative root servers in _the_ DNS. There cannot be any more.

Obviously there can be conflicting DNS's, but that doesn't change the
basic technical limitation of there only ever being one root in the DNS
(whichever DNS you care to use! ;-).

And, as it happens, currently there is only one recognised DNS, with one
set of authoritative root servers.

Anyone who says otherwise is just one of those renegades who can safely
be ignored and they *will* go away.

In any case, technically, there's still only one "root" zone, and only
one set of authoritative root servers, no matter who's DNS you use.
There's no need to invent any new BS to describe something that plainly
does not exist.

> TLD Server == An authoritative server for a Top Level Domain, such as
> the generic TLDs (COM, EDU, INT) and country
> code TLDs (CA, AU, ZA)

The problem is (as stated above), there are many authority layers beyond
that of the TLD. Yes, some of them are getting politisized (repeat what I
said about Mktg and double it).

The real danger is that a schism is developing in the semantics (between
Eng, Mtkg, and the politicians). This may be a pre-cursor to a schism at the
root-level itself. I would dearly like NOT to see that.

That's all totally irrelevant -- just techno-political babble that's
designed to confuse and obfuscate the true technical reality.

Nobody serious about the commercial Internet can afford to leave the
current DNS behind, and any attempts the renegades make at running an
independent DNS that includes the real one as a subset is bound to stay
marginalised and have little or no effect on the current DNS.

It's all about power, and as they say, absolute power corrupts
absolutely, no matter who's DNS you use! :slight_smile:

The only reason we even need new top level domains is that the original
big four were never managed properly and have not yet been retired in
favour of only using country-code domains. So now we contemplate almost
infinite growth of more of the same mess instead cleaning things up, all
because a bunch of greedy people have found a way of extracting
potentially unlimited sums from a vast number of other people, sums
several orders of magnitude more than would be otherwise necessary in a
sane hirearchical world-wide DNS.

3

Well, actually, Greg, there are multiple root clusters, with multiple
sets of authoritative root servers -- but only one of those is
consecrated by DoC/ICANN.

The other ones do exist, do work, and so far as I'm aware, there are
not currently any rogue redelegations of "traditional" gTLDs, nor many,
if any, collisions of non-traditional gTLDs, amongst the various ones.

I don't let the people on DOMAIN-POLICY get away with *overstating* the
case on alternative roots, I shouldn't let you get away with
*understating* the case, neither. :slight_smile:

Cheers,
-- jra