North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Statements against new.net?
- From: Steven M. Bellovin
- Date: Wed Mar 14 00:53:19 2001
In message <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEAPCCAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Mike Batchelor" wr
>> Now - I'll *readily* agree that "ICANN versus new.net" is political,
>> and probably worth discussing. However, I'm going to have to start
>> putting Bozo Flags on people who *still* claim that RFC2826 is political
>> just because it points out that Things Will Provably Break if you have
>> conflicting roots.
>Well DUH! I totally agree that conflicting roots break things. But I don't
>think that conflicting roots is an inevitable consequence of having multiple
>roots, or even multiple root zones.
>I still say it's a self-serving statement with political motivations, and I
>hope I have adequately explained why I think that. I don't expect you to
>agree with me, but I hope I'm not as Bozotic as you thought at first.
I'm sorry -- I still don't see your point. We agree that conflicts are
bad. *All* RFC 2826 says is that you need to agree on the root zone,
assuming that you agree that there's a conflict between a delegation
and non-existence of a zone. 2826 says *nothing* about where that zone
comes from, how you agree on it, etc. It does not mandate ICANN. It
does not mandate the current 13 root servers (though I'll note that
that limit comes from the 512-byte limit on DNS packets, and that DNS
cache contamination means that you may end up believing in different
root *servers* than you thought you believed in, if you send the wrong
query to a site that adheres to a different root religion).
If you can build a *working* root zone with no conflicts -- full
agreement on what all the TLDs are and to whom they're delegated; no
conflicting claims (and delegations) to the One True .xxx; no
dissatisfied people stomping off and building the Even More Open
Pacific Root Zone Conglomerate -- it will be in full compliance with
2826 and I won't have a single technical complaint. To be sure, I
might have my doubts that you can build such a thing, especially the
part about no conflicts -- but I've been saying ever since this whole
topic came up that the worst possible outcome was more than one root.
Nothing that has happened in the interim has changed my mind about that.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb