Statements against new.net?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I
disagree -- there were *no* political discussions. But that's an
unverifiable assertion. Instead, could you point at anything in the
document you perceive as "political" rather than technical? To be
precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the
document?

   Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
   strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
   link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
   the will of the web page designers.

    --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

2

>> RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
>
>It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
>
As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I
disagree -- there were *no* political discussions. But that's an
unverifiable assertion. Instead, could you point at anything in the
document you perceive as "political" rather than technical?

The fact that there currently exists several different operations root
server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact,
if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC
root servers.

To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular
efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the
"Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.

Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when
the IAB formulated this document?

Please understand that I am not accusing you personally of playing
politics, as I don't know you or what motivates you, however it appears
that given the preexistence and continuing operation of alternative
root server networks, and the timing of this document(in the midst of the
formation of ICANN and associated uncertainty surrounding the legacy
structures(IANA, the root server operators, etc.)) that the document
itself was political in nature.

What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political,
especially given the timing?

To be precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the
document?

   Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
   strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
   link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
   the will of the web page designers.

First, I didn't know that Internet address resolution was subject to the
will of "web page designers."

Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address
this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of
any community would. My understanding through following the various
mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this
fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still
remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that
a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes
the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the
virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing
to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and
that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always
a little broken.)

3

To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular
efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the
"Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.

Yes, and I can run an SMTP server that requires all input to be ROT13
encrypted, and it won't bring down the Internet. If 2-3% of the sites
ran such SMTP servers, it wouldn't bring down the internet.

If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two
did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing.

Think this through - a foobar.com address is useful and desirable
precisely because everybody agrees what it means. If your ISP uses
a different root DNS than mine does, and as a result foobar.tvshow
goes to one site for you, and someplace else for me, what have we won?

Are we going to have to go back to %hacking domain names, such as:

foobar.tvshow%ORSC,
foobar.tvshow%MSN,
foobar.tvshow%AOL,
foobar.tvshow%ICANN,
foobar.tvshow%pacificroot,
foobar.tvshow%new.net,
foobar.tvshow%name.space

and so on?

Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when
the IAB formulated this document?

I am *not* privy to IAB deliberations, but I'm fairly sure that they were
painfully aware of their existence - the IAB doesn't issue documents in
a vacuum. RFC2826 was issued because the IAB was aware if their existence.

I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political". Upon careful re-reading
it boils down to:

If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.

If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.

How is this political?

4

Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It cannot avoid
being political (anymore).

5

And so, either the businesses in the market would work out a way to
standardize, or we'd live with it, like we do with the information on
AOL that only it's users can access.

Remember, the current roots are not mandated by law; anybody is free to
not use them.

6

Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It
cannot avoid being political (anymore).

Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document
that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or
ICANN explicitly referred to in that document.

- H�vard

7

> Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It
> cannot avoid being political (anymore).

Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document
that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or
ICANN explicitly referred to in that document.

Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it possibly be
referring to? You're being intentionally dense.

8

> To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular
> efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the
> "Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head.

Yes, and I can run an SMTP server that requires all input to be ROT13
encrypted, and it won't bring down the Internet. If 2-3% of the sites
ran such SMTP servers, it wouldn't bring down the internet.

If however, half the servers were ROT13 and half weren't, and the two
did not interoperate, things WOULD start failing.

And do you believe that people would simply sit on their hands and lament
the lack of interoperability?

If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.

If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.

How is this political?

"...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers
administered by a unique naming authority."

9

> > Because the one root referred to is the USG/ICANN root. It
> > cannot avoid being political (anymore).
>
> Then you must be reading something into the mentioned document
> that I don't. As far as I can see, nowhere is either USG or
> ICANN explicitly referred to in that document.

Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it
possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense.

Well, obviously I disagree. It is my firm opinion that the people
politically opposed to the ICANN/USG/pick-your-DNS-political-enemy
are reading way too much between the lines in this document.

I stand by my claim that the document is first and foremost
technical in nature, and I wish those people claiming otherwise
would actually go back and read the document and cite chapter and
verse.

Regards,

- H�vard

10

It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical
end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political
issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make
all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up
with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands.

-Hank

11

Hi Hank

In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good
choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular
gTLD ...

Regards
  Rafi

12

> Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it
> possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense.

Well, obviously I disagree. It is my firm opinion that the people
politically opposed to the ICANN/USG/pick-your-DNS-political-enemy
are reading way too much between the lines in this document.

I stand by my claim that the document is first and foremost
technical in nature, and I wish those people claiming otherwise
would actually go back and read the document and cite chapter and
verse.

2826 does not exist in a vacuum. You have to decide what it means in the
context of the Internet as it exists today. ICANN and its supporters are
interpreting it to mean one root to rule them all - the ICANN root. Why
else would Esther Dyson suggest - perhaps in jest, perhaps not - that TLDs
outside of the ICANN root should be made illegal?

2826 was intended to be technical in nature, but circumstances have changed
since then.