<!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>The problem is, of course, that it's NOT human-to-human communication. It's machine-to-machine communication, and human-to-machine communication, and DNS was designed to create a mnemonic representation of a way to reach a machine.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>"Hey, tiger's down!"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>"Hey, one nine two dot one six eight dot one oh three dot two five three's down!"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>(Even if you take an example with 192.168 being where ALL the addresses in the network come from: "Hey, one oh three dot two five three's down!")</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In order for the machine to be able to determine what to do, it must be programmed by the humans that created it. In order for the machine to be able to determine what to do in a situation that has more than one possibly-correct resolution, it must be given a set of rules in order to determine what needs to be done.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I will admit that it is possible (not plausible, but possible) for even an email system to be programmed with enough intelligence to be able to deal with the conflict. However, the key word is 'system' -- defined as "all pieces in a computing environment that contribute to a given piece of data being processed the way the humans that are using it desire it to be processed." Which includes all mail servers (speaking SMTP), as well as all mail clients (speaking SMTP, POP3, IMAP, whatever else), and name resolution (DNS, /etc/hosts, NIS, whatever else), and even the underlying virtual circuit technology (TCP/IPv[46]). The entire system must be programmed in a way that is consistent with how the user wants it to work... and getting even two sites to upgrade to a newer version of sendmail at the same time is difficult at best. Much less to get two sites to change their DNS configuration at the same time.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The point is: In order to do our jobs, we have to simplify these complex systems we're responsible for as much as possible. At least with a globally-shared root zone, we're removing THAT piece of complexity from the equation so we can determine what needs to be done at a higher level.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>(Am I lazy? Perhaps. But I'd rather be lazy than crazy.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Speaking for himself, not for his company.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Vadim Antonov [<A HREF="mailto:avg@kotovnik.com">mailto:avg@kotovnik.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:06 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Geoff Huston</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Of course, one may choose to treat RFC as a gospel, but to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>me (and i hope to anyone interested in how cognition works</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to the point of actually getting acquainted with the relevant</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>research) the attached passage sounds quite like a bunch of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>random noise :) Mostly because it assumes that human-to-human</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>communication is a reasoned process, concerned with consistent</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>intepretation. In fact, most of what makes, for example, art</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>interesting is that it does not have a singular, well defined</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>interpretation.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--vadim</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>PS This one, i guess, is brought to you by the Society Against</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> De-Humanization Of Internet Users</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> <tongue firmly in cheek></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>PPS Yes, I think any form which _restricts_ potential models of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> communication is bad. Such as forcing communications to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> moderated by a singular hierarchical structure. This whole</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> thread won't be there in the first place if the scheme actually</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> worked well in the real world. Hierarchies do not scale and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> cannot adequately tolerate internalized adversity.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Geoff Huston wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> At 3/14/01 07:56 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >or desireable :) Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >but the case from the sociological point of view is far from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >to enforce consistency.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> This assumption is explicitly addressed in the RFC - I quote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Effective communications between two parties requires two essential </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> preconditions:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> - The existence of a common symbol set, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> - The existence of a common semantic interpretation of these symbols.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Failure to meet the first condition implies a failure to communicate at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> communication is lost.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> In the case of a public communications system this condition of a common </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must be further </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a unique semantic </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows any party to initiate a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> communication that can be received and understood by any other party. Such </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> a condition rules out the ability to define a symbol within some bounded </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> context. In such a case, once the communication moves out of the context of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> interpretation in which it was defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> lost.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>