[ga-roots] Some observations on RFC 2826

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

RFC 2826, "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS 
Root," is often cited in the policy debates over 
alternate roots. 

According to RFC 2826, the DNS protocol was designed 
with the assumption that there would be only one 
authoritative root zone file. The statement goes on to 
describe some of the difficulties that might occur if 
computers attempting to resolve domain names are 
confused about the contents of the root zone file. The 
fundamental conclusion of RFC 2826 is this:

"*a degree of cooperation and agreed technical rules 
are required in order to guarantee the uniqueness of 
names. In the DNS, these rules are established 
independently for each part of the naming hierarchy, 
and the root domain is no exception. Thus, there must 
be a generally agreed single set of rules for 
[assigning the top-level domain names listed in] the 
root."

I agree with this part of the statement. 
Unfortunately, the IAB also attempted to influence the 
ongoing policy debates by concluding that "it is not 
technically feasible for there to be more than one 
root in the public DNS." It is a rather strange claim. 
There ARE different root server systems in operation. 
These alternate root systems use the same DNS protocol 
and the same software implementation (BIND) as the 
ICANN root servers. Most, if not all, of them are 
capable of resolving all names under the IANA-
delegated top-level domains. So it cannot be argued 
that they are not an implementation of the Domain Name 
System protocol. Nor it is technically correct to say 
that they are "private" rather than "public" name 
spaces. All of the alternate root systems are open to 
any ISP or end user who wishes to point resolvers or 
name servers in their direction.

Even if alternate roots did not exist now, nothing in 
the DNSprotocol prevents a subset of the world's 
Internet service providers or end users from 
redirecting their name servers to some place other 
than the ICANN-administered root, if they wished to do 
so. Thus, the implication of the IAB statement is 
wrong: it IS possible for there to be "more than one 
root in the public DNS." 

What the IAB really wants to say is that such roots 
may lead to various compatibility problems in 
resolving names. Whether the value added by such 
competition is worth the price, however, is not a 
technical matter and is therefore beyond the purview 
of the IAB.

It is also worth noting that one can agree with the 
assertion that "there must be a generally agreed 
single set of rules for the root" without necessarily 
agreeing that ICANN is the sole or proper source of 
those rules. Nor does the general need for a single
set of rules eliminate the legitimacy and benefit of
debate over what those rules should be. 

There is, for example, a need for a governmental 
laws to be promulgated by a single source; few of us
(except for a few anarcho-capitalists) would like to see competing governments issuing different and
incompatible laws. However, all (except for a few
advocates of dictatorship) would agree that competition
through the political process over what the rules
should be is a good thing. 

So in general, I think that RFC 2826 contributes
very little of value to the POLICY debate over 
alternate roots. And its contribution to the technical
understanding of what to do about competing roots
when and if they arise is minimal.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html