Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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

2

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 problem here being that there was NO parallel track to the IETF for
policy issues prior to RFC2026. Also, most of these people saw work on
draft-postel et al go to waste as it was "pulled" from the RFC track and
basically made co-opted by the ISOC. They could have chosen to go the
RFC2026 BCP method, instead they went their own way, ignoring Best
Current Practice.

> 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:

As I noted, the IAHC is working outside of the IETF process also.

1. They are impatient and don't want to work through established channels.

Read this as they don't trust existing channels because they have seen
the process pulled from existing channels previously.

2. They don't believe working through the established channels is
    legitimate.

Existing channels are legitimate as long as they are used.

3. They have tried and their ideas were rejected.

Well, their ideas weren't rejected through an IETF process. The IAHC
documents are being created OUTSIDE the RFC process, outside of Best
Current Practices.

If 1. then they need to learn some patients and cooperation.

Always a good idea for everyone.

If 2. then we disagree and will not agree for the forseeable future.

As I said, existing channels are legitimate, they just aren't being used
ALL of the time.

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 agree with you, I just don't feel it is fair to characterize people as
pirates who are attempting to build a viable(??) alternative to the
present system. Perhaps they should approach this through the
"Experimental" RFC process, would that be the proper approach?

> 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.

You have mistaken me for someone else. You assume that since I defend
their right to attempt to build competing systems that I am one of
"them". I am not advocating that anyone dump or embrace anything,
merely that keeping an open mind is a good idea.

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.

Once again, I think you have mistaken me with someone else. Besides,
press releases ARE a valid method of shaping public opinion and getting
users to test your system. Perhaps if draft-postel had never been
pulled out of legitimate channels none of this would have happened.

> Vince Wolodkin
>

---> Phil

Vince

3

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....

4

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.

  This has been hashed and re-h many times. One can only wonder at
the continuing effort to claim the IETF should be directly involved, given
that it has no charter or history of being so involved.

That was ENTIRELY a private decision and done outside of the IETF process.

  Sigh. Such willful misreprentation facilitates dialogue and
clarity in no way. You may choose to disagree with the IAHC mandate, but
claiming it had none is ... well, you know the "l" word you like to use so
much, Karl?

  The IAHC work was very much public and was very much sanctioned by
the administrative authority for the DNS. Do you really think that
distorting facts like this helps your own cause?

d/

5

Dave Crocker 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

6

The IETF seem to think it's a policy issue and not a technical issue.

I presented a draft at the San Jose IETF at the newdom BOF. It's a
credible plan that includes the IAHC shared-tld plan, but balances the
issues in the overall namespace. It could save a small fortune that
would otherwise be spent on litigation by domain name holders.

But guess what happened? The IAHC, comprising mainly of lawyers,
started their one-way discussion, and as a result started increasing
the billable hours to the legal profession.

Watch. Cringe. There are consequences. But, of course, I'm just
repeating myself (again).

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs
President/CEO
Higgs America

7

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.

  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.

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.

  Thank you for playing.

d/

8

Dave Crocker 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