[wg-c] Multiple Root Distractions

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Folks,

It is long-past time to move discussion about multiple, independent roots 
to some other forum.

It has, quite literally, nothing to do with the work of this group, except 
as a vehicle for keeping us from doing our real work:

At 06:43 PM 12/20/1999 , "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@chaos.com> wrote:
> >It would also be useful to foster a more open process.
> >
> >The only information available is the following:
> >...
> >>In an ideal world, it would be desirable to see some
> >record of a collective thought process.
> >...
> >Minimally, it would be useful to see some record
> >that the statement was actually adopted by the IAB, and

Let's be clear that these critical comments are offered about the most 
open, and arguably most successful, standards organization in the world and 
that there are no examples of more open -- and successful -- 
efforts.  "Fixing" it more likely to break it than to help it.

Let's further be clear that the critical comments also call to question the 
integrity of that body and that they reflect a basic lack of knowledge 
about the work of that body.  The deficiency of knowledge is pretty 
remarkable, given one of the former jobs held by the speaker of these 
critical comments.

So as we consider an ideal world, let us also consider the benefit of less 
petty and less misleading and less distracting contributions.

We could also consider efforts to sanction such efforts to distract, so we 
are spared from any more of them.


At 06:44 PM 12/20/1999 , Paul Garrin <pg@lokmail.net> wrote:
> >It is likely that our developments will go to the IETF for peer review
> >at some point.  We don't believe that is is necessary to do so in order
> >for it to function technically, but it would be nice tradition to give
> >them a crack at it.

If you refer to the work within ICANN, no, it is likely that the work will 
NOT go to the IETF, since ICANN does not create technical specifications.

If you refer to your own company's work then a) that's irrelevant to this 
forum and b) it will require that you hand over control of the 
specifications to the IETF.  As to tradition, there is quite a bit of that 
already and nothing you have described appears to create a new one.

> >practice development and implementation.  All of our work is based
> >on existing standards, there is nothing exotic or non-standard

"Based on existing standards" is typically a vendor code-phrase for 
"proprietary".

If there were nothing exotic or non-standard about the work, then there 
would be no new functionality and no value-add.  (And nothing for the IETF 
to review...)


At 10:18 AM 12/20/1999 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
>A few points - first, the interoperability of the net is not harmed by
>competitive roots to DNS.  IP packets still flow unvexed to their intended
>recipients.

Evidently Karl believes that effectively preventing many users of the net 
from reaching each other does not prevent the net from working.  This is an 
impressively narrow view of network "interoperability".

>Second, I don't see any degree of "irresponsibility" here.  I do see the
>imposition of a regulatory system (ICANN) where none is needed.

You confuse work within one root system administration -- ie, IANA/ICANN -- 
as somehow relating to the work of other, independent root systems.  It 
doesn't.

Like any single activity, this work needs its own coordination 
effort.  That you do not like that work is fine.  You are entirely free to 
use and work with other root systems and other root system organizations.

Again, folks, can  we please focus on the real work of this group and stop 
pursuing items that are off-agenda?

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA