[ga] Re: and if we addressed the problem at its real root? (was Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform)

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Pure BS Jefsey. The basis of the commentary - the RFC you site, is just
that, pure BS and is totally based on a personal opinion of
the author and not technical fact.(I am referring to the specific
portions of the RFC you site as 2826 has all kinds of good
material in it pertaining to the operations of DNS systems.

However - A simple solution based on  NAT and Search Engines,
which did not exist when DNS was formulated or evolved, is
easily fielded. And if they ( the Search Engines and NAT)
had existed at the time that DNS was setup, then its my opinion
that  DNS would look much different. instead of like the
stand-alone embedded address resolution system it is today.

Basically I still insist that the idea of a one-world root is BROKEN,
DAMAGED, IMPOSSIBLE to make work, POLITICALLY A
panacea and nothing more. And this will be the truth until the UN
picks up the operations of the Global Root.

More responses inline below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@vitaminic.net>; "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 5:05 AM
Subject: [ga] and if we addressed the problem at its real root? (was Re:
[ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform)


> At 10:55 05/08/02, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:
> > >> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for,
what
> > >> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> > >Possibly.
> >
> > >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
> > root,
> > >The protocols require that there be only one root:
> > >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
> >
> >Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
> >there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
> >- but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
> >likely.)
>
> Dear Sandy and Vittorio,
> you are among the most reasonable socio/technical oriented folks on the GA
> list. Please do not resume the alt(sic)root sterile discussion.
>
> But may be could we try to address at last the global management of the
> global namespace and the share of the ICANN in it. This is what the DNSO
is
> first about. I tried to initiate this debate as a grown boys debate last
> year but it was confused with the alt(sic)roots non-issue.
>
> May I try to initiate a positive discussion on the subject. Everyone knows
> that I am operating a small experimental root, so no one can think I am
> biased when I say this as a starter;

Congrats!

>
> 1. I fully accept the RFC 2826 main text. I quote it here so it is clear.
> <quote>

Please Jefsey I need a set of "waders" the BS is flowing thick here.
Especially this next concept.

>     To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a
>     globally unique public name space.

Anghhhhhhh - Buzzer sound. This is simply not true and at the very best it
is a personal opinion so it has no place in a RFC. Yet another indication of
the IETF's political stance behind their efforts and their opinionated
stances. The reality's that any set of Search Engines could easily replace
DNS if they were accurately populated and regularly purged and had a proper
lookup client built for them.

>     The DNS name space is a
>     hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.

As we know DNS Services from yesterday. And we also know that this is not
true going forward.

>     This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.

No - it is an opinion and only that. This is why this RFC is flawed. So this
is a political constraint of DNS services as per the IETF - Who elected
them the only source of Internet Standards (Oh that's right ICANN did).

>     Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
>     one root in the public DNS.

This is an out and out lie. It speaks to something that is just blatantly
not true. And yet it is the cornerstone of the IETF's stance. If the "Look
we printed it in an RFC, so it damn well is the truth..." is all one needs
to make something the real truth then what the hell - lets buy a working
group in the IETF. Its easily done and can be made to last.


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

Of course, but even Verisign and Vixie have backed away from BIND, so maybe
the Berkley Internet Name Domain technology is just that - technology built
to run the UC Berkeley internal network and not that of a global solution
even in spite of the IETF.

>
>     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.

Not true with a Root Zone Resolution Protocol. And if the addresses and
names are constrained by their root zones this also allows total replication
of name space per root zone. A simple fix for the IP issues and Name Space
Crowding.

> </quote>
>



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