Re: [wg-c] Re: multiple_roots

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> At 10:29 PM 8/30/99 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >If there are two (or more) possible versions of a TLD, then the operator
> >makes a choice based on whatever criteria the operator wishes to use. As a
> >practical matter, TLDs which are subject to dispute are not very saleable
> 
> You are relying on anarchy to resolve ambiguities.

As for your concern about what holds the net together - I'm relying on
enlightened self interest or what you call "anarchy.".  Which, by the way,
is exactly what holds the net's routing system together.  If it's good
enough for routing, its certainly good enough for DNS.


I've shown this working group a method that can get it out of its bind
(pun intended).  If the working group choses to explore it, great.  If the
working group choses to stick its head in the sand and ignore the full
scope of what DNS technology is, then that's sad.

No matter what this working group or ICANN does, multiple roots can grow
and flourish.


> At the least, that leaves the system open to a denial of service 
> attack.  Anyone wanting to cause problems can simply start a competing TLD 
> with the same name as an existing one.

If that is the case then the net is in sad shape because today we have
multiple roots, they are deployed, they are running, and they work.

But your fear is easily answered - sure, anybody can start a TLD.  But it
takes a root system operator to include that TLD in their inventory.

And anybody can start up a root system.  But unless users chose to use it,
it will have no impact, no matter what it contains.


> At any rate, the lack of coordination ensures that there will be name space 
> divergence.

So?  We have paper telephone books, we have CD-rom phone directories, we
have web sites, all mapping names to telephone numbers and they all give
us usable phone numbers.  Those that don't give useful results simply
wither away.

So we have divergency, so what?  As long as it is divergence without a
difference, who cares.


> Absent reasonable review by the technical operations community, this 
> constitutes a basic and high-risk change to the Internet's operational 
> infrastructure.

The net operates today with multiple roots.  Some folks don't subscribe to
them.  Some of us do.

You can, of course chose to live with the existing root system.  But you
really ought not to force the rest of us who chose to do otherwise into a
limited Procrustean vision.

By saying that is is "high risk" and a basic change, all you are doing is
spreading FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  You are standing in the way
of new ways of using the net and removing means to improve net efficiency.

The world is moving, albeit slowly towards multiple root systems.  
Several ISPs (very large ones at that) have begun to operate their own
root systems to protect their customers from disruption.  And there are
several smaller root systems that have been out there for a couple of
years demonstrating the proof of concept.

I've made my point, I won't bother the WG further.

The working group can chose to pursue what I firmly believe to be a
workable solution.  Or it can spin into ever more repetitious circles,
become even more polarized, and never get to an answer.

I've made my choice.  I am living multiple roots today.  I'm happy with my
decision.

		--karl--