Statements against new.net?

Tue Mar 13 21:55:46 UTC 2001

> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:14 PM

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:54:42 PST, Roeland Meyer said:
> > By the sheer fact that they included a non-technical value-judgment.
> 
> OK.. I'm going to cite chapter and verse:

You might want to calm down a bit. I'm out of the game now anyway (at least,
this round). BTW, I read the original when it was first published. There is
zero technical content, in the  original. to whit;

> Summary
> 
>    To remain a global network, the Internet requires the 
> existence of a
>    globally unique public name space.  The DNS name space is a
>    hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally 
> unique root.
>    This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.

False. It is not a constraint, it results from a restricted implementation.

>    Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
>    one root in the public DNS.  

Improper conclusion based on a false premise. SRS has shown that root-root
synchronization can happen. Probably easier than TLD-TLD syncs, because the
rate of change is much lower. That's a
real-world-and-already-widely-implemented example for you. It gets better,
SRS was already widely deployed BEFORE the IAB published their comment. They
just had trouble connecting the dots.

>That one root must be 
> supported by a set
>    of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
>    authority.

This statement is a pure non-technical value-judgement, supporting the
legacy implementation, and is entirely self-serving. Of course, this
statement, itself, is also a value-judgement. However, note that the defeat
of the false premise, and it's direct improper conclusion, make this
statement a pure political phrase.

>    Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
>    strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click 
> on the same
>    link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
>    the will of the web page designers.

This entire paragraph is a NOP. Webpage designers would never link to
external resources under such condition as stated here. Those that do,
deserve to get appendages whacked.

>    This does not preclude private networks from operating their own
>    private name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely
>    defined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that 
> information
>    from the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the
>    coordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy.
> 
> OK?  Read that.  Read it again.  Read it a third time.  *ALL* that
> says is "If you want to agree what the DNS tree looks like, you have
> to share a root.  If you want your own view, use your own root.
> That's the way DNS is.  You're stuck with the fact that DNS works
> that way. You have to make your own choice which root to use".

You really should calm down. I use external programs to build db.root.zone
files, from external sources. All of the ORSC agrees to the core TLDs, which
includes the legacy roots, and there are dispute proceedures for handeling
collisions.

> RFC2826 SAYS YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF.  Which is more important
> to *YOU*?  100% consistency with the rest of the world, or access to
> your private name space?  *YOU* evaluate, *YOU* choose, and RFC2826 is
> nice enough to point out the problems you'll encounter.

It is not at all an either/or situation. There *is* the path of
"accommodation".

> Now, what non-technical value judgment did you say that RFC2826 was
> making for you?  It's not a "value judgment" that using multiple roots
> with DNS results in inconsistencies, it's *the way DNS works*.

see above.

> I suppose the *next* thing we'll see is people complaining that the
> concept of CIDR is an evil value judgement, because you need 
> to decide what
> aggregation to do in order to keep the routing table a 
> manageable size.

I already have my complaints about CIDR. It is NOT the same and let's not go
there right now.

> 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.

It doesn't say what you think. Do a logical analysis of the docuemnt after
removing all pre-judgements. The document is not self-standing. This is the
first clue that it is a political document. Granted, some of the issues are
that of word-smithing, but that is even more clue that it shouldn't be taken
as "gospel".

If you look at is from the perspective of a system designer/architect, you
will see the holes readily. If you perform a permutations analysis, you will
see that they've walled-off many branches for no good reason (possibly,
convenience). A good design includes all the permutations of all parts of
the requirements matrix. Including, implied requirements that aren't stated.
A robust design doesn't include arbitrary limitations.