RE: [wg-c] Re: MHSC Position Paper (unavailable), and your comments

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Behalf Of Eric Brunner
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 5:59 PM
>
> Thank you for your suggestions concerning your data format choices and
> the relation, if any, with a version of a browser.

They weren't suggestions. I was giving tech support, hoping that the
explanations would mean something to you. Oh well.

> I don't think I understand the answers you offer to the
> questions I asked,
> so in the interests of readability I'll retain the
> interlinear form but
> summarize what I can.

I'm glad that you did, because we seem to be missing some common conceptual
referents.

> >> Could you (in plain text form, please) expand on how Kent's
> >> proposal is avoidably complex and over specified?
> >
> >As far as being overly complex, do a staffing analysis...
>
> Apparently you've already done a staffing analysis. Even if
> it is a back of an envelop, please share the data.

The analysis wasn't that detailed and certainly not in a spreadsheet where I
consider it to be useful. The short answer is that it would take a sizable
permanent staff to maintain and a fairly complex protocol between the
registries.

In turn, you also failed to respond to the point I made about Kent's
solution assuming the institutionalization of the DNS. A point that I
vehemently disagree with and a further argument against the plan. Kent's
plan will simply not work in a non-institutionalized DNS world. It
absolutely requires the bureaucracy to support it.

> You offered the remark that mutual secondaries (the second
> part of your
> remark is below) offer sufficient mechanisms to obviate the need for
> those described in Kent Crispin's proposal.
>
> I asked (1st part)
>
> >> If secondary nameservers are a solution ... (consistency
> of a cached
> namespace and conflicting claims of authoritative nameservice)
>
> You replied:
>
> >Cache corruption is a configuration issue these days and not
> germane ...

I recognise that I was very terse and skipped a lot of steps. I assumed
you'd keep up. In reference to my paper, I required that all registries make
their parent registry one of their secondaries. This is done for a variety
of reasons. It is also obvious that the registry would also provide it's own
local root-server. In this way, all registries secondary for each other. The
terse short-hand that I employed was not adequate to communicate the
concept, I apologize.

I only answered the point that I thought you were making about cache
corruption. Which, in a properly configured system, is not an issue. After
all ... you did ask and I answered.

> I asked (2nd part)
>
> >> Do you expect Paul Vixie to endorse the claim that mutual
> secondaries
> >> solves the problem presented by two (or more) simultenious
> assertions
> >> to authoritative nameserver status? I don't, but I could be wrong.
> >
> >I don't expect Paul to endorse anything but strict
> hierarchy, as he always
> >has, religiously. I believe that, as he gets jerked around with
> >f.root-servers.net, he will eventually come around to a
> different view, but
> >I do not presume to predict what that view might become. I
> watch those
> >developments with interest.
>
> Assuming the correctness of your assertion that cache errors has no
> relationship to the issue of authoritative server determination in the
> presence of two (or more) simultanious assertions by distinct entities
> to authoritative status for a domain, if only for a moment,
> how is your
> answer responsive to the question of whether Paul Vixie would agree
> with your original claim?

There was a lot more implied than is apparent from a simple interpretation
of your question. My response answered the deeper question that I thought
you were asking.

> Does your meaning of "mutual secondaries" mean you wish to see WG-C
> recommend a policy to ICANN which is inconsistent with the operational
> practice of the top-level of the deployed system?

I am not aware that what I suggest is contrary to current practice. That
some of it is not currently being done is obvious. There is no current need.
The idea here is to try and improve some things, or so I thought. There are
many inadequacies in the current practice, RTFP.

> If you don't want to venture an opinion on whether or not Paul will
> agree with the substance of your claim of sufficiency of mechanism,
> or if you think Paul is the wrong person to ask, just say so. Either
> answer will suffice.

Sorry, I never presume to read Paul's mind. We simply don't know each other
well enough. The deeper issue is that Paul is on-record as being against
additional TLD not served from the root. He has cause for his beliefs which
I will not dispute in a non-technical forum. I will say this, I have made
modifications to BIND and have been testing them for some time. This gives
me a fundimental understanding of the problem which few others have.
Certainly beyond the ken of many lawyers. Partially, it is an issue of
design philosophy and style, Paul and I differ. But, where Paul works within
the IETF, I don't have either time nor inclination to do so. I'm too busy
building tera-bit web-sites for a living and  having fun doing it <grin>.

> Next I asked a scaling question about your point that some
> policy is not
> required because "the customers [can] take over the registry". This is
> the second half of your remark that the mechanisms described in Kent
> Crispin's proposal are obviated by those you cited.
>
> I understand your reply to be that you are only considering
> the case of
> registry abandonment, where no substantive controversy could exist. If
> so, then the issue is of little interest, whether Kent got it right or
> wrong.

I submit that it is of fundimental interest to the SLD owners of that TLD.
In my paper I address the abandonment issue directly. This same case
addresses the issue of the TLD registry losing their audit review.

> If as you suggest, a staffing analysis yeilds a cause for concern with
> the set of mechanisms described in Kent Crispin's position
> paper, there
> is not yet any substance to your claim that mutual secondaries and/or
> the irrelevancy of registry abandonment are sufficient to support the
> stated goals of that position paper -- stability, etc.

Actually, the stability issue underlies the very fabric of my paper. I just
don't presume to cast the Internet in institutional amber.

> You did ask what legal history (pleadings) has to do with the issue.
> Where the pleadings of both parties are in accord, there isn't any
> issue or controversy. They are in accord on the point you
> made (retained
> above), and differ with your claim.
>
> I don't understand contradicting both DDN Management Bulletins and the
> common legal statements on the issue you raised by both NSI
> counsel and competent counsel for parties bringing claims against NSI.

It is maybe because I don't understand how lawyer pleadings have anything to
do with demonstrable marketing competencies and business skills.

> I don't mind if you shift your emphasis, having misspoke.

I didn't misspeak. Perhaps, you misunderstood.

Those who can ... do (and get paid ... $well$).
Those who can't do ... teach (at one-third the money).
Those that can't even teach ... work in institutions (no pressure,
guaranteed retirement).
The rest become either lawyers, working-persons, or wine-o's.

Gee, did that broad brush leave anyone out?