RE: [ga-roots] Some observations on RFC 2826

["Josh Elliott" <josh@basicfusion.com>]

Milton,

I think most people will agree with you.  2826 was meant to be a technical
document, and occassionally, the IAB forgets that they are not meant to set
or influence policy.

The technical specifications in 2826 are important and should be followed,
but the policy conclusions stated in any RFC should be ignored unless there
are proven technical ramifications associated.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 8:12 PM
To: ga-roots@dnso.org
Subject: [ga-roots] Some observations on RFC 2826


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

--
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