Statements against new.net?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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?

That doesn't solve the problem. The % is not effectively different from
the . in your example, and if you replace % with ., it becomes quite
obvious that you've just inserted a new top-level. Once you've done
that, who controls who gets ICAN vs. AOL vs. MSN, and the problem
repeats. Anyone who decides to run a competing root for resolving
these hack-names and voila, now foobar.tvshow%AOL means different
things depending on where you resolve %AOL to.

> 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?

It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements and
says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should use one
root." It becomes completely political when it expands that to
encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root. Thou
shall have no other root before me."

While I agree that having one true root is good, and that for the
time being, that should be the ICANN root, the bottom line is
that whether we like it or not, that is, indeed, a political
issue and not a technical one. Sure, the desire to have one root
is driven by technical merits. However, how that root is chosen,
which root it is, and who gets to decide are all political issues.

The fact that the current method of choice is "It's the one that has
been there the longest" doesn't change the fact that it is a method
of choice, and that it is a political issue.

Owen

2

On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Owen DeLong may have written:
[snip]

While I agree that having one true root is good, and that for the
time being, that should be the ICANN root, the bottom line is
that whether we like it or not, that is, indeed, a political
issue and not a technical one. Sure, the desire to have one root
is driven by technical merits. However, how that root is chosen,
which root it is, and who gets to decide are all political issues.

The fact that the current method of choice is "It's the one that has
been there the longest" doesn't change the fact that it is a method
of choice, and that it is a political issue.

that is exactly the problem - it has become a political issue, when it should
be judged _solely_ on technical merit. Backend network operational issues that
have the capacity to fork or render inoperable the Internet as we know it
deserver to be debated and judged exclusively on the basis of what is the Right
Thing To Do.

Whatever method we end up using as a translation between the user interface and
the network, it needs to be chosen because it's the Right Way and not
because X number of people like/don't like it, or because choosing it will
please Corp. Foo that has Y percent market share or Z gazillion dollars.

Technical matters should be decided on technical merits. If we're deciding them
on political merits, then something is already broken and needs to be fixed.

3

That doesn't solve the problem. The % is not effectively different from
the . in your example, and if you replace % with ., it becomes quite

That was my point.

It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements and
says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should use one
root."

Umm.. nope. The statement "For everybody to have the same view of
the world, they need to use the same view of the world" is not political.
It's actually a tautology (If A, then A).

RFC2826 is quite clear that you're allowed to have your own view of
the root - as long as you *DONT EXPECT IT TO INTEROPERATE*.

        It becomes completely political when it expands that to
encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root. Thou
shall have no other root before me."

[~] grep -i icann rfcs/rfc2826.txt | wc
  0 0 0
[~]

That RFC doesn't say it has to be the ICANN root. It just says that
everybody who wants to agree on what the DNS looks like has to agree to
use the same root. It also specifically says that you're free to use
an alternate root as long as you don't insist that your alternate root
have the same identical view as other people's roots.

Now if the pro-multiple-root people would just *say* that "We understand
that multiple roots are an issue, but we're *so* peeved at ICANN that we'd
rather deal with the complications than use their root", there *might* be
a chance at rational discourse.

OK? Let me repeat that: RFC2826 doesn't say how to pick who gets to run
the root. All it says is that if you don't AGREE who gets to run the root,
things will break. And that's not political in the slightest. It's just
the nature of the DNS system.

4

> 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?

It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements
and says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should
use one root."

I disagree. If you accept the premise of the RFC, which is that
the goal is to be able to communicate effectively, then this is a
natural consequence of the first two statements, as explained in
the RFC.

It becomes completely political when it expands that to
encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root.
Thou shall have no other root before me."

Chapter and verse, please. You must be reading something I don't; I
can't find any statements in there which says this.

Regards,

- H�vard