<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Statements against new.net? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>(My comments interspersed)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Roeland Meyer [<A HREF="mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com">mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com</A>]</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> To remain a global network, the Internet requires the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> existence of a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> unique root.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>False. It is not a constraint, it results from a restricted implementation.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--My Comment--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>And how would you propose unrestricting this implementation? The DNS design is ratified as an Internet Standard.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>--End My Comment--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>That one root must be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> supported by a set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> authority.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This statement is a pure non-technical value-judgement, supporting the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>legacy implementation, and is entirely self-serving. Of course, this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>statement, itself, is also a value-judgement. However, note that the defeat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of the false premise, and it's direct improper conclusion, make this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>statement a pure political phrase.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--My Comment--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The DNS SOA record specifies a single point of contact for all failures related to the zone, as well as the name of the true master of the zone. Yes, it's possible for there to be an arbitration authority who is ultimately responsible for the root zone, but THERE IS A SINGLE AUTHORITY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ZONE. Read that statement again. Be it a corporation, a partnership, or an individual person (such as Jon Postel, may he rest in peace), there is ONE single authority. There -must- be, as a purely operational issue -- just as there must be a single POC for a NOC for a backbone transit provider. Or else nobody will use it, due to the issues involved in trying to coordinate between two or more authorities. Miscommunication == Downtime. Miscommunication Between Parts of the Authority == More Downtime. Downtime is Unacceptable in the Root.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--End My Comment--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> on the same</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the will of the web page designers.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This entire paragraph is a NOP. Webpage designers would never link to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>external resources under such condition as stated here. Those that do,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>deserve to get appendages whacked.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--My Comment--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>How would you propose to resolve this problem? Without a SINGLE point of authority for the Root, there is no one person/organization/etc who is ultimately responsible for the shape or design. Which means that there is Confusion. From Confusion comes Chaos and Politics... in the old days, when it was primarily a technical decision, the Techs could deal with it. Now, with Users and Politicians and Managers (collectively Chaosmongers), the Order (such as it is) of the Techs will not be heard.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--End My Comment--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>You really should calm down. I use external programs to build db.root.zone</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>files, from external sources. All of the ORSC agrees to the core TLDs, which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>includes the legacy roots, and there are dispute proceedures for handeling</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>collisions.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--My Comment--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>That's fine, but ORSC doesn't attempt to hijack any TLDs that were already claimed and invested into by other entities. You choose to use your own root -- this means that your "private" TLDs will not be visible to people outside of the ORSC's sphere of authority -- that's the risk and choice that you have made. But as soon as your "private" TLDs are taken over by another corporation/entity that can make deals to hijack them in the public eye, you're probably going to be raising bloody hell.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Also, how many webpages actually refer to the ORSC's TLDs?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>--End My Comment--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> RFC2826 SAYS YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF. Which is more important</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to *YOU*? 100% consistency with the rest of the world, or access to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> your private name space? *YOU* evaluate, *YOU* choose, and RFC2826 is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> nice enough to point out the problems you'll encounter.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It is not at all an either/or situation. There *is* the path of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"accommodation".</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--My Comment--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Indeed... but will other people accommodate -you-?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>--End My Comment</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>