Statements against new.net?

Tue Mar 13 20:49:44 UTC 2001

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:34:25 PST, Owen DeLong said:

> That doesn't solve the problem.  The % is not effectively different from
> the . in your example, and if you replace % with ., it becomes quite

That was my point.

> It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements and
> says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should use one
> root."  

Umm.. nope.  The statement "For everybody to have the same view of
the world, they need to use the same view of the world" is not political.
It's actually a tautology (If A, then A).

RFC2826 is quite clear that you're allowed to have your own view of
the root - as long as you *DONT EXPECT IT TO INTEROPERATE*.

>         It becomes completely political when it expands that to
> encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root.  Thou
> shall have no other root before me."

[~] grep -i icann rfcs/rfc2826.txt | wc
	0	0	0
[~]

That RFC doesn't say it has to be the ICANN root.  It just says that
everybody who wants to agree on what the DNS looks like has to agree to
use the same root.  It also specifically says that you're free to use
an alternate root as long as you don't insist that your alternate root
have the same identical view as other people's roots.

Now if the pro-multiple-root people would just *say* that "We understand
that multiple roots are an issue, but we're *so* peeved at ICANN that we'd
rather deal with the complications than use their root", there *might* be
a chance at rational discourse.

OK? Let me repeat that: RFC2826 doesn't say how to pick who gets to run
the root.  All it says is that if you don't AGREE  who gets to run the root,
things will break.  And that's not political in the slightest.  It's just
the nature of the DNS system.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech