The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

Sat Jul 9 16:23:26 UTC 2005

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Vierling" <tv at duh.org>
To: <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com>
Cc: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

> So what?  DNS is one of the protocols where interoperability is not just
> desirable, it's MANDATORY.
> 
> Businesses and individuals expect that when they publish an e-mail or Web
> site hostname, that it be theirs and only theirs no matter where on the
> Internet it is accessed.  FQDNs are considered fixed points of entry, and
> alternate roots put that name resolution at risk.  (But if you had actually
> read RFC2826, you would already understand this.)
> 

Please prove that Inclusive Namespace roots put name resolution at risk.
Please show how the current NTIA root is more secure than other roots.
Again, please refrain from emotional rhetoric driven by religion. What we
need is sound technical arguments.

> Client side users, conversely, expect that published addresses by businesses
> or individuals go to the intended party.  (But if you had actually read
> RFC2826, you would already understand this.)
> 
> Introducing fragmented TLDs or the opportunity to supplant the common TLDs
> places the DNS infrastructure at risk.  This is not just FUD -- DNS
> hijacking in alternate roots has already happened.  (But if you had actually
> read RFC2826, you would already understand this.)
> 

Please post a link or give an example. If you mean .BIZ, I would agree, it was
hijacked, but by ICANN, not by any Inclusive Roots. It belonged to AtlanticRoot
and ICANN deliberatly created a collision. Collisions cause instability and the
biggest one was caused by ICANN.

> > > 3. *Common sense.*  [Erm, oh yeah, perhaps I shouldn't feed the troll.
> > >    After all, this is the same guy who thinks that resurrecting the
> > >    long dead concept of source routed e-mail is scalable.]
> >
> > Since when did the NANOG mailing list become your personal
> > venue for flinging personal insults at other list members?
> 
> Nope, not personal -- it's just good to make sure a troll is properly
> labeled as such.  You know, like how cigarettes have bad-for-your-health
> warnings.
> 
> > For the record, I have never suggested that source-routing
> > is a good idea for email nor have I ever suggested that
> > source-routing is scalable.
> 
> Okay, then, "forced arbitration" (which is interchangeably equivalent to
> source routing if the arbitrators handle the mail as it transits).
> 

"Forced arbitration"? - Not an Inclusive concept - but it is an ICANN concept
(UDRP/WIPO).

> 
> On the flip side, there was quite a bit of experience with alternate DNS
> roots at the time RFC2826 was created -- AlterNIC, which was run and
> advocated by people just as blinded by ignorance as you.
> 
> Oh wait, your name wouldn't *actually* be Jim Fleming, would it?
>

Todd, I can only ask, and you can ignore the request, but please try to 
refrain from posting religious/emotional arguments. Everything you
have posted above is unsubstantiated and sounds like an emotional and
religious position. It is not helpful to  introduce emotion and religion into 
a technical debate about such an important topic. I ditto Karl's point about
this sounding like the telco execs in the early 1970's. 

> -- 
> -- Todd Vierling <tv at duh.org> <tv at pobox.com> <todd at vierling.name>
> 
> 

John Palmer