[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> 08/17/99 05:18PM >>> wrote:
>Hi Kevin,
>
>> a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name
>> space is a public resource and is subject to
>> the public trust;
>>
>>
>>Wherefore it appears that Mr. Rutkowski is sniping at straw men this
>>afternoon.
>
>When you signed, did you enter a reservation that took exception
>to the word "space"? The term "domain name space" characteristically
>subsumes the underlying tree structure within the space. See Domain
>Name Space, Mockapetris, DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS and FACILITIES, RFC 882.
Wow. Quite a stretch.
First of all, RFC 882 contemplated a hierarchical name space, one in which it makes
a difference whether we are talking about the root zone, .com, cybersharque.com,
or (hypothetical: the cybersharque RR's are not configured this way)
coredocs.cybersharque.com. Now MAYBE there would be a germ of sense in
Mr. Rutkowski's argument if this debate were taking place in 1983 (when RFC
882 was issued) but the DNS has grown considerably since the days when the
Ur-texts were issued. Today, If I delegate coredocs.cybersharque.com to Ken as a
mirror site for documents of and about CORE, then, under the express terms of
RFC 1034, the rules that apply above that delegation do not govern below it. See, e.g.,
Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 of RFC 1034. The last of these says:
"Once an organization controls its own zone it can
unilaterally change the data in the zone, grow new tree sections
connected to the zone, delete existing nodes, or delegate new subzones
under its zone."
Moreover, there is a rule for understanding verbal expressions which is so old
and tired that we repeat it in Latin, to make it sound distinguished: expressio
unius est exclusio alterius. For example, if Mom has baked a pie and a cake,
and the resident four-year-old asks "Mommy, can I have some cake?" and Mommy
says, "You may have a small piece of pie," the kid should not be surprised to be
spanked for taking a piece of cake. When Mommy said you may have pie
(expressio unius) she was saying "You may not have cake" (exclusio alterius).
So, likewise, when, in the gTLD-MoU, we speak of the Top Level Domain Name
Space being imbued with a public trust, we are excluding from our discussion the
namespace below that level. Of course, I believe that 99% of the readers understood
this sort of distinction before I drew it in such detail, but Mr. Rutkowski seems to
be off on a tangent of distraction again.
In other words, of course I entered a reservation that the rules for the TLD name space
are different from those that apply to SLD names. That reservation is express in the
language of the gTLD-MoU itself, and Mr. Rutkowski disserves his reputation when
he engages in semantic stretches (and disregards the fact that "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> 08/17/99 05:18PM >>> wrote:
>Hi Kevin,
>
>> a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name
>> space is a public resource and is subject to
>> the public trust;
>>
>>
>>Wherefore it appears that Mr. Rutkowski is sniping at straw men this
>>afternoon.
>
>When you signed, did you enter a reservation that took exception
>to the word "space"? The term "domain name space" characteristically
>subsumes the underlying tree structure within the space. See Domain
>Name Space, Mockapetris, DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS and FACILITIES, RFC 882.
Wow. Quite a stretch.
First of all, RFC 882 contemplated a hierarchical name space, one in which it makes
a difference whether we are talking about the root zone, .com, cybersharque.com,
or (hypothetical: the cybersharque RR's are not configured this way)
coredocs.cybersharque.com. Now MAYBE there would be a germ of sense in
Mr. Rutkowski's argument if this debate were taking place in 1983 (when RFC
882 was issued) but the DNS has grown considerably since the days when the
Ur-texts were issued. Today, If I delegate coredocs.cybersharque.com to Ken as a
mirror site for documents of and about CORE, then, under the express terms of
RFC 1034 (which obsoletes RFC 882, but then, I must assume, Mr. Rutkowski,
knowledgeable as he is, must have known that RFC 882 has been obsolete for
years), the rules that apply above that delegation do not govern below it. See, e.g.,
Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 of RFC 1034 (which, not incidentally, obsoletes RFC 882)
Section 4.2 of RFC 1034 says:
"Once an organization controls its own zone it can
unilaterally change the data in the zone, grow new tree sections
connected to the zone, delete existing nodes, or delegate new subzones
under its zone."
Moreover, there is a rule for understanding verbal expressions which is so old
and tired that we repeat it in Latin, to make it sound distinguished: expressio
unius est exclusio alterius. For example, if Mom has baked a pie and a cake,
and the resident four-year-old asks "Mommy, can I have some cake?" and Mommy
says, "You may have a small piece of pie," the kid should not be surprised to be
spanked for taking a piece of cake. When Mommy said you may have pie
(expressio unius) she was also saying "You may not have cake" (exclusio alterius).
So, likewise, when, in the gTLD-MoU, we speak of the Top Level Domain Name
Space being imbued with a public trust, we are excluding from our discussion the
namespace below that level. Of course, I believe that 99% of the readers understood
this sort of distinction before I drew it in such detail, but Mr. Rutkowski seems to
be off on a tangent of distraction again.
In other words, of course I entered a reservation that the rules for the TLD name space
are different from those that apply to SLD names. That reservation is express in the
language of the gTLD-MoU itself, and Mr. Rutkowski disserves his reputation when
he engages in semantic stretches (and disregards the fact that RFC 882 is obsolete) as
he has done this afternoon.
KJC
<usualyada>
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************