Re: Single DNS root

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 21:10 01/09/2005, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Thursday, 01 September, 2005 02:49 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear Harald and Paul,
> May be time to stop 3683ing this issue. Major moves in the
> naming area are probable in the year to come (PADs - shared
> root under UN - National TLDs, CENTR move.); while an ICANN
> request of update of RFC 2826 stays unanswered or opposed for
> four years.

Jefsey,

Just to understand the relationship between your reality and
mine,


Dear John,
No problem. What is a reality (back-ground, referent and context) is 
precisely the ultimate question of this R&D. But you jump into 
something complex enough, at the core of an evolution the IETF does 
not consider much.



what "ICANN request for an update of RFC 2826" are you
talking about?


I quoted it in the mail. This is the ICP-3 document. This document is 
often confused as an anti-New.net pamphlet. This is key document 
which discusses:


- the legitimacy of ICANN, rooting in the consensus we had in 1984, 
JonPostel documented in RFC 920
- the need of a unique authoritative root as documented in RFC 2826, 
plus harping on alt-roots, etc.
- the development of the Internet technology based upon 
experimentation and the need of a community experimentation for the 
evolution of the DNS. The IETF is quoted there as both a possible 
experimentation leader and further standardiser.


I have asked several times that IETF addresses that request. I was 
usually responded that IETF is ill suited to lead an experimentation. 
I therefore ran such a test-bed for two years, involving up to 30 
machines (2002/2003) from all over the planet (dot-root project). The 
results of this experimentation lead to several 
conclusions/proposition validations. They are the base of my 
positions and several initiatives.



 Certainly there was some discussion within ICANN
circles about whether 2826 meant what it said.  But, of course,
anyone can say just about anything in an ICANN meeting or on an
ICANN mailing list as long as it is consistent with the
organization's norms for appropriate behavior (just as with
Internet Drafts and IETF mailing lists).  Such a comment is not
equivalent to an "ICANN request".

I am aware of one informal inquiry from an ICANN staff member as
to whether the IAB was likely to have more to say on the
subject.  The informal response (from one of the editors of 2826
but with general sympathy from the IAB) was, if I recall,
approximately "which part of 'unique' are you having trouble
understanding?".


This was during the writing of ICP-3 and the fuss over alt(sic)roots. 
RFC 2860 deals with the past. Not with the evolution of the Internet. 
ICP-3 investigates the possibility of the end of the concept of 
unique authoritative root file. It takes advantage from your draft on 
classes: this a way to show where and how far to investigate and 
respond the question "what does experimentation teach about the 
internet evolution?". This was also the time IDN started being 
considered. IMO a lot of things would have been different had we 
considered that well written document.


ICP-3 also gives the criteria for such an experimentation we strictly 
followed (except in extending to what we named ULDs [upper/user level 
domains] to be able also to test real users behaviours in a 
consistent way with these criteria). In that area we experimented that:


- the management of the current root file can be far more efficient, 
secure, TLD Manager directed and universally controlled than by ICANN 
or investigated by the CENTR.


- the single authoritative root should be a notion to stay, but the 
file concept should develop into a structured matrix. We also 
identified that these notions could find an adequate solution in the 
evolution of the IANA concept itself to adapt to ISO 11179 conformant 
ideas to CRCs (Common Reference Center) organising a DRS (Distributed 
Registry System). The report I published - paid by Govs and 
international instances - was ... thick but it only partly covered 
our small budge. The AFRAC organisation we created to continue 
experimentation and development on the DRS part for France. It gives 
additional experience.


ICP-3 document refers to classes (in using a Draft of yours). This is 
a more complex issue, we identified as a general problem (I 
documented in a mail a few weeks ago) of the Internet architecture. 
Several architectural parameters default to "one". The problems of 
partitioning we face and started a balkanisation of the network, can 
be structurally solved without conflict and more easily in turning 
that parameters to "multiple set". There is one class, one (may be a 
little more) group, one IPv6 plan, one namespace, one IANA, one 
language, one ICANN, one IP, etc.



At least in my memory and reality, there has been no "ICANN
request" for an update, much less one that has been "unanswered
or opposed".


I argued that IETF should comment. This did not attract p

Re: Single DNS root

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, 01 September, 2005 02:49 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear Harald and Paul,
> May be time to stop 3683ing this issue. Major moves in the
> naming area are probable in the year to come (PADs - shared
> root under UN - National TLDs, CENTR move.); while an ICANN
> request of update of RFC 2826 stays unanswered or opposed for
> four years.

Jefsey,

Just to understand the relationship between your reality and
mine, what "ICANN request for an update of RFC 2826" are you
talking about?  Certainly there was some discussion within ICANN
circles about whether 2826 meant what it said.  But, of course,
anyone can say just about anything in an ICANN meeting or on an
ICANN mailing list as long as it is consistent with the
organization's norms for appropriate behavior (just as with
Internet Drafts and IETF mailing lists).  Such a comment is not
equivalent to an "ICANN request".  

I am aware of one informal inquiry from an ICANN staff member as
to whether the IAB was likely to have more to say on the
subject.  The informal response (from one of the editors of 2826
but with general sympathy from the IAB) was, if I recall,
approximately "which part of 'unique' are you having trouble
understanding?".

At least in my memory and reality, there has been no "ICANN
request" for an update, much less one that has been "unanswered
or opposed".

Could you explain what you are talking about and identify the
request to which you are referring? 

Or stop this, lest the claim about such a request become part of
Harald's 3683 case?

   john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Single DNS root

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

Dear Harald and Paul,
May be time to stop 3683ing this issue. Major moves in the naming 
area are probable in the year to come (PADs - shared root under UN - 
National TLDs, CENTR move.); while an ICANN request of update of RFC 
2826 stays unanswered or opposed for four years.


On 17:25 31/08/2005, Paul Hoffman said:

At 3:24 PM +0200 8/31/05, Peter Dambier wrote:

the Public-Root is not an alternative root but a solution.





It also confuses Registries and Registrars (cf. presentation of ccTLDs)

makes it very clear that this set of root-like servers intends to 
answer affirmatively and authoritatively for TLDs that the 
real/generally-accepted
root servers would say do not exist. From the material on that page, 
it is also likely that, in the future, the NS records returned by 
these root-like servers for some TLDs will be different than those 
returned by the real/generally-accepted root servers.


There is an USG/ICANN contract over IANA functions confirmed by RFC 
2860. Not to make any politics let call it "legacy" root as results 
from the 1984 agreement (RFC 920, claimed source of the ICANN 
legitimacy). The resulting "legacy top zone" - through server 
declarations - is already larger than documented by its root file.


In other words, the statement "the Public-Root is not an alternative 
root but a solution" seems dishonest  when one reads the material at 
the site describing the service.


Correct. The "Public-Root" is technically a decentralised root file. 
It is not a "solution".


At 13:44 31/08/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Anyone who wishes to avail themselves of this service would be well 
advised to read RFC 2826 - "IAB Technical Comment on the  Unique DNS Root".


Harald, RFC 2826 has been used and partly out-dated by the 2001 
response ICANN (http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm ) you ignored for 
practical reasons I accept, but none one commented. It calls for an 
experimentation to document the evolution we face today unprepared. 
When there is more than an unique authoritative root file.


I lead such an experimentation for two years, along with the ICANN 
criteria. Most of my positions you oppose have been tested and 
validated there. I am sure would you run a similar test-bed, our 
strategies could still oppose, but our understandings of the network 
architectural evolution would be similar.


When IETF documents refer to the DNS, I think it's a safe bet that 
they are intending to refer to the system under the single root that 
most people regard as "the root".


May be, but this is wrong. We are to face the balkanisation vs. 
compartmentalisation reality. Chinese law and US Statements of 
Principles have enforced a new situation leading to sovereign 
alt-roots. We can say "obey RFC ", be disregarded and get 
balkanisation. Or we can work on solutions adapted to the current 
evolution, imagine a distributed root system (no big deal) and 
possibly obtain a unique authoritative root matrix. A few months from 
now it will practically be too late.


Harald, we are in direct competition over the language root. "my" 
solution there can survive a balkanisation of the IANA, not yours. So 
it is a common interest to quickly review and document the evolution 
of the name root before it is too late for you and a pain for others.



I don't think any of the fundamentals have changed in the last 5 years.


This _IS_  the problem. You have not seen and acknowledged the change 
(first act: Tokyo 2000, call for the first change in RFC 920 status 
quo), leading to (2001) considering the obsolescence of these 
"fundamentals". In that area nothing has changed since 1984 on the 
internet root side, while the Internet _has_changed_ into the 
international network it only interfaced in 1984.


This change is not trivial, it must be matched by a serious "how to".

jfc


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf