RE: [wg-review] dndef, 9

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

We might remind ourselves what we are talking about here. We are talking
about the root-zone and all the stuff under it.

Zone servers themselves, plus the interconnections to the internet, are
infrastructure. MHSC controls about 30 of them. The zones that they serve
are "content". /USG/DOC/NTIA controls the preimenent content file for DOT,
the root-zone. There are other DOT-level content files out there, one of
them is the ORSC root-zone. MHSC has our own root-zone, based on the ORSC
root-zone (the same way that ORSC root-zone is based on DOC root-zone).
These DOT-level content files do nothing more than point to other zone
servers that serve TLD level content files. A TLD zone file, unlike a DOT
level file, can be uniquely named, ie COM, NET, and ORG. The, in tuen, point
to SLD level zone servers, that server SLD level content files, which are
also uniquely named, like MHSC.NET. This can go on ad nauseum
until,eventually, one points at a host, rather than a zone server.

What some folks fail to realize is that, any of these pointers can be
directly to a host, at anywhere in the chain. MHSC, MHSC.NET, MHSC.NET.VPN
are ALL references to the same host and they resolve that way on MHSC zone
servers. The only differences are the path through the authority chain.

Note that, the DOC controls the content of their root zone file, as does the
ORSC control theirs, as MHSC control theirs. DOC outsources publication of
their file via NSI, using ROOT-SERVERS.NET, the ORSC is a confederation of
zone server network operators, MHSC publishes via ROOT-SERVICE.NET. Of all
of these, and there are more (PacificRoot, AtlanticRoot), only the DOC does
not control ANY infrastructure. The rest of us own the servers that publish
our root-zone files. 

Where is the ICANN in all of this? The ICANN does NOT control any root zone
files, it ALSO does NOT own ANY infrastructure that publishes any root zone
files. The ICANN merely tries to influence the DOC in the management of the
content of the DOC root zone file. Thus far, it hasn't had ANY measurable
influence.

In the face of this, it is clear that a DNS name is solely an addressing
mechanism. All other uses are from secondary meanings attributed to the
particular sub-strings used in the name. The addressing table, that we call
the zone files, are the content of an huge addressing database, distributed
over MANY machines(hosts).

Definitions of domain name, outside of this structure, are meaningless. This
whole fight, from day-one has ALWAYS been about the control of the content
of the DOT and TLD level zone files.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: Sotiropoulos
> Cc: Eric Dierker; review
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9
> 
> 
> Sotiris,
>  The state does not own the Internet infrastructure, at least not
> all of it. And there are a lot of nations involved here.  Any
> influence little groups like ours has is at the pleasure of the
> owners (not that this is a bad policy on their part -- they are
> wise to allow users to have some influence).
>  My main point is that the existing Internet is a particular
> physical manifestation that might or might not prevail into the
> future.  And, more important, any presumption that the present
> DNS will remain the dominant naming mechanism on the public
> networks is by no means assured.  And that COM, NET, ORG and
> others are only figments of the current DNS's imagination.  And
> that the issuance of TLDs requires assessing who controls the
> root domain.  And that subdomains under TLDs, and subdomains
> under those subdomains, will be governed according to the
> delegation agreements from parent domain holder to child domain
> registrant.  And that there's competition at every level except
> for who owns the root, and there's competition even there, if
> TPTB get too uppity, because DNS itself is optional, if you
> consider how fast new protocols can catch fire in the market.
>  If the others like, lets take this off the list.
>   mbw
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> Cc: "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>; "review"
> <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Miles B. Whitener wrote:
> >
> > > Sotiris,
> > >  I don't see how your analogy applies.
> >
> > Let's walk through it together.
> >
> > > What I am saying is like
> > > this: if I own a physical network (here, the Internet), then
> I
> > > can dictate, generally, how services (here, DNS, as run on
> port
> > > 53) are to be used.
> >
> > If the State owns the highway, they can tell you what height
> your
> > vehicle can be to use it (due to overpasses etc..).  The State
> can also
> > tell you what type of vehicles they want driven on it (i.e.
> ones that
> > don't pollute, hence, emission controls).  The State can also
> tell you
> > how fast you can drive, and can give you speeding tickets if
> you disobey.
> >
> > BUT the State cannot tell you which car (in a perfectly
> legitimate car
> > market) you can or cannot buy.
> >
> > > And if I make an agreement with somebody to
> > > _delegate_ the management of something to them, then the T&C
> of
> > > the agreement will dominate, under the law of the nation.
> >
> > When your highway *must* pass through other people's
> > Counties/Jurisdictions, would you not say that they had some
> *right* in
> > the "delegation" of your disposition (after all, you *want* it
> to pass
> > through their territory, don't you?)
> >
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >        Hermes Network, Inc.
> >
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html