Re: IETF / UN
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:41:40 -0400 Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > > "But the UN is a government--" > > "No it isn't," Martin insisted, "It's a talking shop. > > Started out as a treaty organization, turned into a bureaucracy, > > then an escrow agent for various transnational trade and standards > > agreements. After the Singularity, it was taken over by the > > Internet engineering task force. It's not the government of Earth; > > it's just the only remaining relic of Earth's governments that your > > people can recognize. ..." > > > > Singularity Sky, by Charles Stross, ISBN: 0-441-01179-9, Ace Books. > > From page 281 of the July 2004 paperback edition. > > We're already on the edge of on-topic and this comment has the risk of > sending us spiraling off, but everyone really must immediately stop > whatever you're doing to go out and buy and read everything by Charles > Stross. You won't regret it. > Indeed. A few years ago, I dropped him a note and mentioned that that line was quite popular in the IETF. He replied As it happens I'd be quite surprised if the IETF or something like it *doesn't* end up running the planet one of these days. (Running the planet being a thankless infrastructure maintenance task, after all.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF / UN
We're already on the edge of on-topic and this comment has the risk of sending us spiraling off, but everyone really must immediately stop whatever you're doing to go out and buy and read everything by Charles Stross. You won't regret it. As long as we're off-topic... Stross is doing a signing in San Francisco today at 7pm. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/index.html http://www.bordersstores.com/stores/store_pg.jsp?storeID=57 -- Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF / UN
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > "But the UN is a government--" > "No it isn't," Martin insisted, "It's a talking shop. Started > out as a treaty organization, turned into a bureaucracy, then an escrow > agent for various transnational trade and standards agreements. After > the Singularity, it was taken over by the Internet engineering task > force. It's not the government of Earth; it's just the only remaining > relic of Earth's governments that your people can recognize. ..." > > Singularity Sky, by Charles Stross, ISBN: 0-441-01179-9, Ace Books. From > page 281 of the July 2004 paperback edition. We're already on the edge of on-topic and this comment has the risk of sending us spiraling off, but everyone really must immediately stop whatever you're doing to go out and buy and read everything by Charles Stross. You won't regret it. Matt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF / UN
... "But the UN is a government--" "No it isn't," Martin insisted, "It's a talking shop. Started out as a treaty organization, turned into a bureaucracy, then an escrow agent for various transnational trade and standards agreements. After the Singularity, it was taken over by the Internet engineering task force. It's not the government of Earth; it's just the only remaining relic of Earth's governments that your people can recognize. ..." Singularity Sky, by Charles Stross, ISBN: 0-441-01179-9, Ace Books. From page 281 of the July 2004 paperback edition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Un-expiring procedural documents
On 2007-06-13 17:18, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 2:11 PM +0300 6/13/07, Jari Arkko wrote: Yes -- but for clarification to others (I know you are aware of this), the criteria are in active use by the IESG and often referred to when we talk about some AD's discusses. The document was originally an I-D (now expired), but is available from: Isn't this what the ION series is for? Sure, but someone has to do the work to IONize each such document. That's why I built the ad hoc list still to be found at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/opNotes.html Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Un-expiring procedural documents
At 2:11 PM +0300 6/13/07, Jari Arkko wrote: Yes -- but for clarification to others (I know you are aware of this), the criteria are in active use by the IESG and often referred to when we talk about some AD's discusses. The document was originally an I-D (now expired), but is available from: Isn't this what the ION series is for? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Noel sez: If some WSIS-blessed bureacracy decides to make IP addresses "portable" (like phone numbers in a number of jurisdictions), fyi/a - an example of this thinking can be found in the aug 7 1997 amendment to the ARIN articles of incorporation - put there under the insistance of part of the US regulatory establishment see http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/artic_incorp.html added paragraph (7) to encourage allocation policy changes for Internet Service Providers in order to enhanse comperition by providing mobility of Internet Service Providers among upstream Internet Service Providers when it is generally agreed that the technology is available for portable addressing. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> Might I suggest all participants in this discussion figure out what you really want to use DNS for if you were to assume it didn't exist in the first place. Imagine going back in time to 1986 and explaining to everyone at the IETF the way things would develop and then, after they've stopped laughing, imagine what kind of system would have resulted. My personal suspicion is that two things would be very different: There wouldn't be one monolithic namespace/protocol/system. At least two systems would exist: one for hiding IP network layer topology from apps and another for describing and naming services for end users. The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. It might be what people today call "peer to peer" (although I have yet to find a good definition of what that means) but that might not be an issue since the names wouldn't be hierarchical. What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd think we're good at -MM /me goes back to building rockets which is much more fun... -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
For those who do not know the history, are curious, or who might find themselves in the position of advising those who are part of these discussions, Appendix C to Marshall Rose's _The Internet Message: Closing the Book with Electronic Mail_, Prentice-Hall, 1993 makes extremely illuminating and entertaining reading. With a dozen year's hindsight, I'd go so far as to suggest that Marshall's observations about OSI and the process that produced it were too optimistic. all too true! /mtr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
On Monday, October 03, 2005 08:08:23 AM -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In 1977 at the time of the Silver Jubilee a case of this type had to be hurriedly abandonded after a charge of 'usurping the royal coat of arms' was brought against a man for producing an unauthorized bedspread with the royal coat of arms. It was only after the charges were brought that the prosecutors discovered that this was a capital charge that had been overlooked in the bill eliminating the death penalty. "Oops" ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
At 16:44 03/10/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: This is certainly true in theory. In practice any attempt to do this would lead to the root being fractured. It would lead to a monumental diplomatic incident. Dear Phillip, I am afraid this is not what is the main concern of Governments, because if such a breach would occur this would certainly mean war. And in such cases Govs use to have contingency plans rather than depending on a group of volunteers including two military servers of the adverse country. A more insidious version of a breach is a uncertain "e-embargo" when a confused UN situation would permit it. This can be the devolution of a ccTLD to a fraction, in a revolution, as part of a peace road-map. Delayed updates of the root files may delay/destabilise an economy or be used as a diplomatic signal other countries have not. We all have in memory the KPN-Quest story (60 ccTLD secondaries have been closed overnight, all their new IP addresses have been documented in hours. Root updates took from a few hours to several months. The name of the delayed countries was very diplomatically instructive on the US policy. States did not forget.). But without going to such extremes, typical cases could be: - there is a bug in the US file. It is a military target for many. We recently had a case of a manual patch in the root file to correct a bug. - a general black-out in the USA or in another country one has to rely upon (like it also happened Italy). The restoration priorities will go to national needs before other countries. If only because local needs will be better documented. - a critical situation in a given country may call for special urgent decisions. Let for example consider a nuclear plant accident in Europe. The TV screens will be polluted. The best way to address population through clean, calm screens will be ADSL. You want then priority to civil security. Another issue is legal and police root logs. The root archives (logs, agreement, policy statements, people, etc.) represents an important national sensible economic intelligence leak. But most of all the problem is now the control of national innovation/protection. USA is in economic competition to many as every other country. If the DNS is managed by the USA, it is managed by competition. Status quo protects the US interests in protecting the US industry usage of the Internet against more innovative uses elsewhere. A country may be imposed an US permitted innovation it does not want (ex. PathFinder). There are legal issues: if for example a country wants to block/filter access to the names of another country (for example simply due to different anti-spam enforcement attitude). Example: if a State decides against access to ".xxx". The USA just expressed clearly a very simple rule everyone agrees, including Europe a few days ago: a sovereign State cannot delegate national security and sovereignty issues to foreign voluntaries. There is also a simple consideration which should rise a lot of concern: this is the legal responsibility in case of major incident. There will be costs and deaths. Who will be considered as responsible. Who will pay? The volunteers out of their pocket? ISOC for the possible protocol flaws Justice could discover? There is also the technical evolution. The Root servers work well. But is the root server system the most adequate solution? There are alternatives in use and under consideration everywhere. This may destabilise the DNS, protection are necessary. The DNS is like the Titanic. We need compartmentalisation for risk containment. The question is not "IF", but "HOW". I explained 2 years ago I was holding meetings on this issue in France, after a 2 years experiment along the ICANN ICP-3 call's to test the matter. Which resulted in part from New.Net and in part from security considerations (http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb) after 9/11. All this was mostly ignored. The Govs and analysis have slowly proceeded. Govs now are on the verge of deciding. New architectures are on the verge to emerge. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN plans to take over our job!
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 12:27, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > ... the monolingual/etc. Internet is the ... Huh? The Internet is already multilingual. Heck, the message following yours in my inbox was in a mix of Korean and English. - Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> Behalf Of John C Klensin > Ultimately someone has to operate the keyboard that puts > lines/ records into what ultimately becomes the root zone > file. And someone has to supervise that person/ entity. This has to happen. But ultimately backbone carriers have to decide to route IP packets in certain directions. The 'root' is a consenusal construct. > Now, for better or worse, that evaluation process, > particularly for ccTLDs, has been the source of an immense > amount of controversy. Those who get most excited about the > status quo don't acknowledge that ICANN is a legitimate, > international, multi-stakeholder, private-sector organization > but, instead, > refer to it simply as "the US Government Contractor". They > point out that the US Government has asserted responsibility > for, and control of, the root zone and that it clearly has > the ability to overrule ICANN in determinations about root > zone entries. This is certainly true in theory. In practice any attempt to do this would lead to the root being fractured. It would lead to a monumental diplomatic incident. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> Centuries of experience for trademarks? I seem to recall it > being much younger than that. And abuse of such concepts has > increased exponentially over the past few decades. If you visit Chester in the UK you can see buildings with guildmarks made before Columbus sailed. The first Trade Mark registry was established in the UK in 1875 but the common law tort of passing off is much older and remains in force today. Many of the guild marks were and are protected by specific royal charters that effectively grant a monopoly of use since usurping a coat of arms is an offense. In 1977 at the time of the Silver Jubilee a case of this type had to be hurriedly abandonded after a charge of 'usurping the royal coat of arms' was brought against a man for producing an unauthorized bedspread with the royal coat of arms. It was only after the charges were brought that the prosecutors discovered that this was a capital charge that had been overlooked in the bill eliminating the death penalty. Phill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 17:58:16 -0400 Michael Mealling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain I believe we tried. Many times. We were roundly ignored. and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed We tried that too (starting with X.500, going on with whois++, and on through a dozen more proposals that did not get even that much traction. And maybe that work doesn't belong here in which case "we're going to do something" isn't relevant, and it translates to "we're sitting back and hoping someone will do something". Which isn't all that far from what we've been doing for the last year or five. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
I'd like to suggest that people who think they know how to design an alternative to the DNS should go away and do so, and come back when they have a proof of concept to show us. It'll need to be scaleable, secure, robust, internationalized, and deployable as a retro-fit, as well as guaranteeing that names are universally unique. That's the necessary condition for a useful discussion in the IETF. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> X.400 tried that. So did X.25.
*>
*> I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that
*> its unique identifiers were *memorable*.
*>
*>
*> Harald
*>
*>
And unlike X.500, the DNS was *conceptually SIMPLE*.
And indeed at the Hawaii IETF (Nerds in Paradise), there was I think one
of the last gasps of X.400 within this group simply on the basis of what
got put on a business card. If memory serves, this was in one of the
so-called "transition" groups that were politically popular at the time.
Combining these two conversations then...
And I also have to add that having a .signature file with a list of
viable paths, such as {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax}!rutgers!lear really is not
something I want to return to, either!
All of this having been said, various folks have considered doing just
that several times. Of note to this group would be PIP, one of the
candidate IPngs that made use of supposed landmark routing, which if I
recall correctly never quite got off the ground. More recently, Dave
Cheriton and his students made an attempt at something called Triad,
which had all the makings of pathalias. This time the idea sank like a
rock.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN plans to take over our job!
At 23:47 30/09/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I have had discussions with parties who are fully aware of the difference between ICANN and the IETF and it is clear they want to take over both. Dear Hallam, the monolingual/etc. Internet is the adherence to the RFCs supported by the IANA and structured by the RIRs IP addresses. The multilingual (and probably many other multi aspects) Internet is also the "language root" a close limited version of which just finished its EISG LC. The control of the langroot is assumed by the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. As for the other "roots" (name and address spaces) the langroot can be (de)centrally controlled or distributed. Being only concerned by IETF deliverable user QA, I want, for them three, sure, stable, secure and innovation oriented distributed solutions. I many times explained why, to the dislike of some. For historic reasons this is not true for the name and address spaces: this is what the WSIS tries to correct. RFC 3066 Bis organises the centralisation of the langroot. So, it may fall under either an MoU between EITF and Unicode (probably leading to an internal competition of influence between solution and service providers), either the Library of Congress, either UNESCO or possibly a surviving ICANN. Due to the European position we eventually obtained, a solution like UNESCO would be more likely. The global management of IANA registries in a WSIS context will probably be ISO 11179 compliant (we name it the DRS for "distributed registry system"). This will remove a lot of direct involvement to IETF in three key areas. It is too early to have a vision of a correct IETF position. The first move is obviously an ISO 1179 compliant langroot, to protect its independance from commercial, political and UN interests without a serious open user control. I said it was my priority. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Is it not the case that if you distribute an unique namespace (rather than use a tree for DNS) you will end up swapping a root based DNS architecture for some form of PKI to authenticate the distributed namespace as meeting policy and that this also needs a structure to guarantee authenticity and to achieve this universally we would end up with some similar looking policy control issues to determine how to manage the infrastructure so that it is safe? Of course having decided on the operational policy parameters it would be useful to be able to automate the operations. But surely the same could apply to IANA functions? It's the policy that is tough and takes thought. Incidentally I agree that there is need of identifiers that users can deploy that goes into the data infrastructure rather than simply the underlying device (or pseudo device) infrastructure addressed by DNS. But generally ideas along these lines that I've seen tend to piggyback with or around the DNS rather than replace it. - Christian de Larrinaga [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 30 Sep 2005, at 22:15, Michael Mealling wrote: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Mealling writes: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Reexamine the premises I am -- these are my premises. I lived far too long in the uucp world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble. Again you're talking about mail routing and addressing mechanisms when the people that use DNS in their web browser are looking for a smart search interface that understands better what they're after and why. Why do those two applications have to use the same addressing scheme? Many of the political problems with DNS have nothing to do with routing email and have everything to do with the fact that its what your grandmother is using as an interface. Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living. Sure security requires a level of exactness that you shouldn't burden the user with or else he won't use the system I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. And what I'm suggesting is that uniqueness is a requirement of networks and system, not people. The issues the UN has with the way DNS is run have to do with the fact that you're trying to apply a requirement of the network to society and that creates problems. IMHO, we should look at building a system that works the way people use identifiers and identity and then get that to work with the existing network we have. -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN - Don't panic
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > If you allow a bunch of engineers to create their ideal working > conditions they would allow unlimited scope for technical excellence > with no hard deadlines and no need to ever interact with the actual > customers. Well said. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ (not expressing any opinion on the "UN taking over" issue) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Thomas Gal writes: > Well certainly the network controls in place in china are a good > example of this. HOWEVER I'd say really it all boild down to power. The path to power is paved with trampled freedoms. > YES! Not to mention the plethora of engineers and geeks who know too > much about what's going on and CAN complain. I'd say as more of our > knowledge pervades society more people could understand the issues > that bother some people. It's a bit like the religious debates over which operating system is best on the desktop. The average consumer doesn't care, and just goes with whatever comes installed on the machine. Only the geeks argue endlessly about supposed advantages and disadvantages to particular operating systems, none of which actually amount to a hill of beans for serious users (those who use computers to get things done, as opposed to geeks who spend their lives tweaking machines but never actually use them for anything important). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Harald, On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:59:47PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > --On fredag, september 30, 2005 16:36:13 -0400 Michael Mealling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely > >understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able > >to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely > >differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a > >store and forward network. > > X.400 tried that. So did X.25. > > I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that > its unique identifiers were *memorable*. And the use of a very simple characterset for these identifiers helped a lot too. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
--On Friday, 30 September, 2005 19:00 -0400 Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that > believe that > the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that > the development of Internet > protocols and technical > standards has become too important to be left > to a bunch > of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close > > to a quote) > > Far be it from me to defend the IETF (of which I don't have > that high an opinion these days), but the historical irony > here is a bit too rich for me to pass up. > > Those with very long memories will remember when the Internet > Working Group (the predecessor to the IETF) was told, by > another international body, to "roll up their their toy > academic network and take it home" (again, pretty close to a > quote, but I'm going from memory here; perhaps someone else can > correct my undoubtly-failing memory). > > I don't know what the IETF will-be/is-being replaced by, but > one thing I think you can bet on it *not* being replaced by is > some standards body blessed by a bunch of international > bureacrats acting at the behest of their governments. > > Been there, done that. As I tried to indicate in my earlier note, I was trying to write it in a very neutral fashion, just describing the forces at work, rather than my opinion of them or their plausibility. I do have that long a memory. Writing the note that way was hard. For those who do not know the history, are curious, or who might find themselves in the position of advising those who are part of these discussions, Appendix C to Marshall Rose's _The Internet Message: Closing the Book with Electronic Mail_, Prentice-Hall, 1993 makes extremely illuminating and entertaining reading. With a dozen year's hindsight, I'd go so far as to suggest that Marshall's observations about OSI and the process that produced it were too optimistic. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> Michael Mealling writes: > > > All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... > > So is the current system. Why does it have to change? > > > Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of > > users who consider the current system to be broken. > > More specifically, there are certain entities that feel they > don't have enough control over the system. They don't want a > system in which anyone can do anything, even if they don't > approve of it personally. Freedom frightens them. > Well certainly the network controls in place in china are a good example of this. HOWEVER I'd say really it all boild down to power. > > And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. > > Translation: They have money and power so they are going to > eliminate freedom. > > > The question is whether this organization is going to be > involved in > > that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about > > thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived > > problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to > > it > > I don't hear too many _users_ complaining about anything. > It's mainly corporations and governments who want to control > every bit that passes over the Net. > YES! Not to mention the plethora of engineers and geeks who know too much about what's going on and CAN complain. I'd say as more of our knowledge pervades society more people could understand the issues that bother some people. -Tom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> > Michael Mealling writes: > > > Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it > > represents a pretty good description of how human beings > cognitively > > use names and words. > > No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force > others to do their bidding. IP law is already enough of a > pox on society as it is, there's no reason to make it worse > by encoding it in the world's only global computer network. > > > It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently > > works for everything humans need it to. > > Centuries of experience for trademarks? I seem to recall it > being much younger than that. And abuse of such concepts has > increased exponentially over the past few decades. > Perhaps he's referring to the fact that civilizations have dealt with couterfiting and fraudulence for centuries. Any sort of identity notion at the highest level is really just a trademark. We've just added things like social security nubmers, places of birth etc. to our structure for naming people. I'd really be quite happy if I was never again to mistype one character of a URL only to end up at some site that is piggybacking on the few hundred people a day who make a typographical error. All of the issues with fake sites exploiting multilingual character sets and other issues in the infrastructure that allow phising attacks etc. all involve a notion of trademark or "unique identity" in one way or another. > > But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to > > think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end > > users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the > > world. > > Except that 99.999% of all Internet users do _not_ think in > terms of trademark law. Only a handful of extremely wealthy > corporations think in that way. > > > Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a > > URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for > everyone that > > has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web > > seems to be working just fine > > What do URIs not have now that they need? > > Now that everyone can have a SIP address for everything.nothing at all! Seriously though I'm sure we could come up with lots of one off corner cases, but all in all considering the encumberance of technology evolution I'd say we're doing pretty good. -Tom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > IP address allocation (the real subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) > are not managed by IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. Actually, we do, at least in the case of IP addresses. If some WSIS-blessed bureacracy decides to make IP addresses "portable" (like phone numbers in a number of jurisdictions), the technical people will be in deep do-do. (And of course that issue is 100% the same in IPv4/6, since the semantics of IPv4/6 addresses are basically the same, as are the routing [path-selection] mechanisms in both.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that believe that > the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that the development of Internet > protocols and technical standards has become too important to be left > to a bunch of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close > to a quote) Far be it from me to defend the IETF (of which I don't have that high an opinion these days), but the historical irony here is a bit too rich for me to pass up. Those with very long memories will remember when the Internet Working Group (the predecessor to the IETF) was told, by another international body, to "roll up their their toy academic network and take it home" (again, pretty close to a quote, but I'm going from memory here; perhaps someone else can correct my undoubtly-failing memory). I don't know what the IETF will-be/is-being replaced by, but one thing I think you can bet on it *not* being replaced by is some standards body blessed by a bunch of international bureacrats acting at the behest of their governments. Been there, done that. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: As the result of a service lookup they only need something that identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an identifier for... What's wrong with "http" at the front, and/or a port number at the back? Those are network concepts. The "service" I'm talking about has to do with the task the user is actually attempting to accomplish. http://foo.com:1235/bla.php Tells me nothing about whether I can use that for the "I want the current weather report" service or if its a DAV entry point for doing collaborative document management That's my last one on this thread. I'm not in this business anymore -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > Have you checked into how Skype and VOIP in general are working > internationally lately? No. I already have a telephone. > Not an E.164 phone number anywhere in the entire thing. Its all identifiers > that look > like AOL screen names and peering agreements. And it seems to be working > out just fine Okay, now make it work for the existing telephone system. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > As the result of a service lookup they only need something that > identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an > identifier for... What's wrong with "http" at the front, and/or a port number at the back? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
*> *> X.400 tried that. So did X.25. *> *> I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that *> its unique identifiers were *memorable*. *> *> *> Harald *> *> And unlike X.500, the DNS was *conceptually SIMPLE*. Historical note: in the early/mid 1980s, the IAB and its US government funders were very concerned with the name lookup problem. They realized that the DNS was designed for host name lookup. The government tasked the IAB with developing a "yellow pages" service to complement the "white pages" of the DNS. But this effort got wrapped entirely around the complexity of X.500, a top-down standard with little/no running code, and died. This will all be found in early IAB meeting minutes. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine What do URIs not have now that they need? As the result of a service lookup they only need something that identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an identifier for... See the various specs that use NAPTR records for some examples of how the Service field is used... -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed Do it with telephones first, as a proof of concept. If there's still a usable telephone network after that, then perhaps it might be worthy of consideration for the Internet. Being one of the co-authors of the ENUM spec, I've actually paid attention to how that's all working out. Have you checked into how Skype and VOIP in general are working internationally lately? Not an E.164 phone number anywhere in the entire thing. Its all identifiers that look like AOL screen names and peering agreements. And it seems to be working out just fine -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a > look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around > navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in > NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the > world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite > polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer > that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not > how mail gets routed Do it with telephones first, as a proof of concept. If there's still a usable telephone network after that, then perhaps it might be worthy of consideration for the Internet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... So is the current system. Why does it have to change? > Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of > users who consider the current system to be broken. More specifically, there are certain entities that feel they don't have enough control over the system. They don't want a system in which anyone can do anything, even if they don't approve of it personally. Freedom frightens them. > And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. Translation: They have money and power so they are going to eliminate freedom. > The question is whether this organization is going to be involved in > that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about > thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived > problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to > it I don't hear too many _users_ complaining about anything. It's mainly corporations and governments who want to control every bit that passes over the Net. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents > a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and > words. No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force others to do their bidding. IP law is already enough of a pox on society as it is, there's no reason to make it worse by encoding it in the world's only global computer network. > It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently > works for everything humans need it to. Centuries of experience for trademarks? I seem to recall it being much younger than that. And abuse of such concepts has increased exponentially over the past few decades. > But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to > think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end > users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the > world. Except that 99.999% of all Internet users do _not_ think in terms of trademark law. Only a handful of extremely wealthy corporations think in that way. > Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI > with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has > looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to > be working just fine What do URIs not have now that they need? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes: > Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people > do not want to connect to the rest of the world. That's exactly what a lot of national governments would like to do. > Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do > try to do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude > .ca). That's exactly what a lot of national governments would like to do. > Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that > try to change this but people continue to insist on the original > architecture as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the > shouting that has gon on around attempts to store policy information > in the DNS. When every change must be propagated to a billion machines, a conservative approach is best. > Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented > local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces > hierarchy where none exists. But it does exist, just as it does for the telephone network. > If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much > information people cared to put in it. If we were redesigning it today, it would never actually be up and running. Instead, it would be continually revised in endless volumes of specifications written by people with nothing better to do in life, and nobody would implement more than a fraction of the spec, and they'd always be several versions behind, and their implementations would never be quite correct, and nothing would ever work together very smoothly at all. The reason the Internet is successful is that it was designed before the bureaucrats took over. The reason X.400 failed is that it was designed after the bureaucrats took over. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > You're making assumptions that its one system. No other medium requires > uniqueness for the names _people_ use. Any medium that does not require it tends to be extremely inefficient and error-prone. > You and I are perfectly capable of understanding that there might > be two Steven Bellovins in the world. When there are twenty million John Smiths in the world, the problem becomes impossible to manage. > And conflating all of that into one system is the problem. Take those > things that humans use and separate them from those things that > computers and networks need to get things done. That's what the DNS does. But the greater the distance separating the two, the more complex, slow, and error-prone the system will be. You cannot allow human users to work in a disorderly way and expect to get an orderly result at the machine level. The system cannot think on behalf of the people using it. > Don't burden people with the uniqueness requirement when that's > not the way they expect the world to work ... They don't seem to have a problem with that "burden" when it comes to using telephones. > ... and don't burden the network with having to differentiate badly > between service behaviors given nothing but an IP address and a port > number. What's bad about the differentiation? > Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which > is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of > view and ignore what's been done to date. Look at the problem from an implementation point of view and remain realistic as to what is possible if one wants any semblance of order and performance. > Reexamine the premises Don't fix what isn't broken. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
David, Two minor points of calibration. I've got (strong) opinions about some of this, but am going to try to write this note as neutrally as possible, just explaining where things stand. --On Friday, 30 September, 2005 14:34 -0700 Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > a) Design of the protocols and specifications; the IETF does > that, and I don't think anyone is thinking of taking that > away. So "The UN is taking on the IETF's job" is a > non-suggestion non-starter. Without getting into a discussion of how legitimate the claims are or how likely any decisions that might be made would mean anything, there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that believe that the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that the development of Internet protocols and technical standards has become too important to be left to a bunch of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close to a quote) and needs to be turned over to a body in which decision-making rests with governments, etc. That body would presumably, but not necessarily, be the ITU which is part of the UN system. >... > I, for one, would be much happier in a world > where I know who has the authority to decide whether you > really are a company with that name -- with the answer being, > the authorities in the identified area. So, adding > non-geographic TLDs to my mind, is a mistake; I'd prefer > fewer of them. Deprecate ".com" in favor of ".co.us" (or > ".co.hm" or wherever else you want to be). And if Tuvalu > wants to continue to sell its name to first-come-first-served, > it may; I will soon learn to give ".tv" names the same (low) > level of trust I give ".com". > > If this were the agreement, the question of who operates the > root DNSs, routers, and the like would be almost as > uncontroversial as to who designs the protocols, in my opinion. Ultimately someone has to operate the keyboard that puts lines/ records into what ultimately becomes the root zone file. And someone has to supervise that person/ entity. When someone comes along and says (to use your example), "the nameservers for .hm should be X, Y, and Z", a determination has to be made as to whether that request is legitimate and authorized wrt either the current administration of .HM or the government responsible for Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. Note that statement about legitimacy and authority actually involves several choices which might need to be made. Now, for better or worse, that evaluation process, particularly for ccTLDs, has been the source of an immense amount of controversy. Those who get most excited about the status quo don't acknowledge that ICANN is a legitimate, international, multi-stakeholder, private-sector organization but, instead, refer to it simply as "the US Government Contractor". They point out that the US Government has asserted responsibility for, and control of, the root zone and that it clearly has the ability to overrule ICANN in determinations about root zone entries. They then proceed to say that the determinations as to the legitimacy of requests to change the records for a given ccTLD should not be in the hands of any one country, and say it in a way that makes it very clear that the statement implies "especially a country they don't like, don't trust, and which has a reputation for throwing its weight around". So that situation is, in practice, anything but uncontroversial. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. There are lots of users of the Internet besides trademark holders. I don't see why this latter group deserves special consideration. Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and words. It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently works for everything humans need it to. But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the world. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. I always get nervous when I hear talk like this. I can picture the 5000-page committee-designed specification already. Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of view and ignore what's been done to date. Look at the problem from an implementation point of view and remain realistic as to what is possible if one wants any semblance of order and performance. I have. As have others. See the following: draft-daigle-iris-slsreg-00.txt draft-hollenbeck-epp-sls-00.txt All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... Reexamine the premises Don't fix what isn't broken. Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of users who consider the current system to be broken. And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. The question is whether this organization is going to be involved in that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to it -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to "Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine rather than a name,service pair to a machine. Sort of. What I was trying to get at was that DNS is designed to resolve an identifier to a machine for consumption by computer programs, not as a human factors component of a user facing system capable of helping humans get things done that humans care about. Its the difference between forcing my grandmother to learn SQL to do a search and giving her "Ask Jeeves". To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed And maybe that work doesn't belong here -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: > The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly > and wouln't be hierarchical. There are lots of users of the Internet besides trademark holders. I don't see why this latter group deserves special consideration. > The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a > complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. I always get nervous when I hear talk like this. I can picture the 5000-page committee-designed specification already. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > There are several crucial attributes that are hard to > replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query > for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same > answer everyone else should get. > This is the problem with "alternate" roots -- depending on > where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also > what differentiates it from a search engine -- my > applications don't know how to make choices. Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people do not want to connect to the rest of the world. I have a private zone set up in my house on .local for testing. I am sure there are similar military nets. I have no idea why anyone would prefer (say) .gprs over .gprs.arpa or the like. Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do try to do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude .ca). > Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the > appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to > "Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine rather than a name,service pair to a machine. Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that try to change this but people continue to insist on the original architecture as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the shouting that has gon on around attempts to store policy information in the DNS. Today a DNS name is a conceptual relationship to a collection of services. > Finally, you need locality: people within an organization > must be able to create their own names. Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces hierarchy where none exists. There is a distinction between commercial, educational and non-profit enterprises but it is not a very important one. It is certainly not important enough for them to require separate name spaces. Different TLDs for different countries is also kinda bogus. If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much information people cared to put in it. We would work out some other scheme for load balancing etc. The .edu/.com scheme really reflects the NSF funding criteria of the day. However the fact remains that we are not redesigning DNS from scratch and it has largely been fixed already - if we choose to recognize the fact. One point made by Michael I think people should really take account of: >What I find humorous is that this community's default position >seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals >at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what >you'd think we're good at This is international power politics at the highest level. The real issue here is not governance of the Internet, that is just a convenient pretext. There is a diplomatic battle going on here that threatens to become a real war. Diplomats prefer to avoid wars so they invented 'protocol' which at certain times mean that the participants go off and find something they can fight over that allows them to demonstrate the stakes and their positions with less risk of actual fighting. This is of course the main reason why most people would prefer to avoid that type of involvement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN plans to take over our job!
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:31:17AM -0400, Will McAfee > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ > > There is no discussion here of a plan to take over IETF job > (when you say "our job", I assume, from the mailing list it > is posted on, that you refer to IETFers). > > The root DNS zone or the IP address allocation (the real > subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) are not managed by > IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. That is not quite true. I have had discussions with parties who are fully aware of the difference between ICANN and the IETF and it is clear they want to take over both. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
At 17:03 -0400 30/09/05, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. I agree. There is some confusion in other postings which this (and oteher postings) have addressed. There are quite a few aspects of the internet, not all of which are suitable for the UN. Some aspects might be: a) Design of the protocols and specifications; the IETF does that, and I don't think anyone is thinking of taking that away. So "The UN is taking on the IETF's job" is a non-suggestion non-starter. b) Design of the conceptual operational aspects; e.g. which TLDs exist, and so on. This one, I think, is fair game for discussion (see below). c) Operation of the equipment; backbones, routers, DNS, and so on. This one seems to work pretty well, as far as I can see, today. On (b), I (as an individual) have long preferred the model that when I go to an address (for example), "www.acme.co.hm" I really am getting a company that has the rights to call itself "the acme company" in the jurisdiction of "Heard Island and the McDonald Islands". The current system of (roughly) first-come-first-served in the non-jurisdictional TLDs is, to my mind, unsatisfactory both for those wanting to own a domain, and those (like me) wanting to know on what basis it can be trusted. I, for one, would be much happier in a world where I know who has the authority to decide whether you really are a company with that name -- with the answer being, the authorities in the identified area. So, adding non-geographic TLDs to my mind, is a mistake; I'd prefer fewer of them. Deprecate ".com" in favor of ".co.us" (or ".co.hm" or wherever else you want to be). And if Tuvalu wants to continue to sell its name to first-come-first-served, it may; I will soon learn to give ".tv" names the same (low) level of trust I give ".com". If this were the agreement, the question of who operates the root DNSs, routers, and the like would be almost as uncontroversial as to who designs the protocols, in my opinion. Whether this is on-topic for the IETF list I am not so sure, and if someone wants to say authoritatively not, I'll be silent... -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Mealling writes: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Reexamine the premises I am -- these are my premises. I lived far too long in the uucp world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble. Again you're talking about mail routing and addressing mechanisms when the people that use DNS in their web browser are looking for a smart search interface that understands better what they're after and why. Why do those two applications have to use the same addressing scheme? Many of the political problems with DNS have nothing to do with routing email and have everything to do with the fact that its what your grandmother is using as an interface. Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living. Sure security requires a level of exactness that you shouldn't burden the user with or else he won't use the system I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. And what I'm suggesting is that uniqueness is a requirement of networks and system, not people. The issues the UN has with the way DNS is run have to do with the fact that you're trying to apply a requirement of the network to society and that creates problems. IMHO, we should look at building a system that works the way people use identifiers and identity and then get that to work with the existing network we have. -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Mealling writes: >Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >Reexamine the premises > I am -- these are my premises. I lived far too long in the uucp world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble. Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living. I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 16:36:13 -0400 Michael Mealling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a store and forward network. X.400 tried that. So did X.25. I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that its unique identifiers were *memorable*. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Although what WSIS may or may not decide is undoubtedly of > interest to the Internet community, I really think it is a > distraction here and now until there are concrete questions > for us to discuss. Our community's route to the WSIS > discussions is through the ISOC - where basic membership is > free, by the way. The time to have discussions is before the concrete proposals are put on the table. Once there is a plan on the table it is usually too late. The Internet has affected the entire global economy. It should not be a surprise then that control of the Internet is a global political issue. There are three viable defense strategies. One is to be strong enough to defeat any enemy that might threaten you, the second is to make an alliance to achieve that end, the third is to establish a situation where occupation is simply not worthwhile. At the moment the IETF appears to be relying entirely on the second option. That relies on the powerful ally being willing and able to continue support indefinitely. It would be better to consider making use of the third strategy in addition. Defense is important but it should be the last resort of diplomacy. The actual issues most of the countries that are raising the governance issue are concerned about are of equal concern to the IETF community, at least in the abstract. Nobody in the IETF is opposed to global Internet access. One way to preserve the current institutions in place would be to set out a set of basic principles that would be considered binding. For example every country has an absolute right to connect to the Internet. One important consequence of this would be that DNS root zone allocations must not be withheld as a means of imposing a sanction. This is a serious concern to certain countries even though attempting to do so would be improbable. The other more practical consequence is consideration of what will happen when the IPv4 address space is finally exhausted. I suggest people read Jarred Diamond's Collapse for ideas on what might happen when the last IPv4 address block is cut. I suspect it would be similar to what happened on Easter Island when the tribes that had cut down all their own large trees found they needed wood. It is likely to be ugly, and hypothesizing an instantaneous migration to IPv6 does not make the problem go away. A statement to the effect that the US will be in the same boat as everyone else when IPv4 space runs out would go a long way to alleviate concerns here. And yes I know that people have been predicting the end of IPv4 address space for years. I bet people who were worried about deforrestation on Easter Island were also told 'people have been predicting that we will run out of trees some day and they have always been wrong in the past'. We are bound to run out of IPv4 addresses sooner or later. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: There are several crucial attributes that are hard to replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same answer everyone else should get. You're making assumptions that its one system. No other medium requires uniqueness for the names _people_ use. You and I are perfectly capable of understanding that there might be two Steven Bellovins in the world. Its the email routing system that requires uniqueness. There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a store and forward network. This is the problem with "alternate" roots -- depending on where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also what differentiates it from a search engine -- my applications don't know how to make choices. And conflating all of that into one system is the problem. Take those things that humans use and separate them from those things that computers and networks need to get things done. Don't burden people with the uniqueness requirement when that's not the way they expect the world to work and don't burden the network with having to differentiate badly between service behaviors given nothing but an IP address and a port number. Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to "Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of view and ignore what's been done to date. Finally, you need locality: people within an organization must be able to create their own names. Yep. It may be that some of these requiremets are fundamentally at odds with the notion of full decentralization. If you try and shove it all in one system, sure The addressing requirements of IP addresses and SMTP addresses are different and probably "fundamentally at odds with each other". Does that mean you still force both to use something that doesn't satisfy either system? No Reexamine the premises -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
UN - Don't panic
There are really two questions, what should we do and what can they make us do? As I suggested to Harald when this came up last year. Why not just let them take over the IETF lock stock and barrel? The only effect that would have is that there would be an immediate defection of the Working Groups to an organization with a different title but essentially the same people running it. We might see some overdue organizational reforms in the process such as the replacement of NOMCON with direct elections, we would be forced to face the fact that the RFC editorship and IANA models are antiquated but that would be all. The IETF is not the only standards organization that influences the Internet. That is not a bad thing at all. The real question is what influence the rump legacy IETF would have. They would control IANA and the RFC editorship but that is all. The RFC editorship could and should be replaced by an automated submission system. IANA is only needed because the IETF insists on designing protocols that assume the existence of fixed allocation registries. Well MIME type allocations do entirely well despite the fact that official IANA registered types are a small fraction of the total. SRV entry point registrations work fine too, the IANA registry is considerably smaller and less authoritative than the unofficial one. So one thing that we should do is to stop trying to force protocol design into a mold the preserves IANA control. If we insist that the only way to extend the DNS is through IANA RR assignments then whoever controls IANA controls the net. Fortunately cutting new DNS RRs is completely unnecessary. Prefixes work just as well if you are prepared to let them (the silly argument made in the IAB paper is not true). The defense side is fine but that does not mean that the IETF can or should ignore diplomacy. The issues that the Brazillians and the Egyptians have raised are not without justification. The W3C does not have this problem despite being larger and more active. This is because the W3C has been much better at convincing people that it is open and considers the issues raised by non-US, non-European Internet users just as seriously as domestic ones. I agree that this is not the real problem with the IETF the truth is that US and European Internet users are also ignored. The situation is unfortuately engineering for engineers. If you allow a bunch of engineers to create their ideal working conditions they would allow unlimited scope for technical excellence with no hard deadlines and no need to ever interact with the actual customers. Diplomacy requires a change in this approach. It is as important to be seen to listen as to listen. The IETF does not have a formal process for active listening. That is the work that I think the IAB should be doing. The big problem here is that the W3C has a large budget to fund its listening activities. The IETF does not. Some imagination is needed here. Perhaps a series of regional conferences/round table discussions. The issues raised by the Brazillians are valid, the issues raised by Iran are not. Here there is a larger context of geo-politics that I don't want to get into and I think will be temporary in any case. What cannot be negotiable is the introduction of any technology into the Internet to enable or facilitate government control of its users. The Web was designed to give dictators a choice: if you want to be part of the rich industrialized world you have to allow relatively unfettered access to information that will inevitably undermine authoritarian government. This has worked in practice, the great firewall is really just a face saving device, the authorities know that the real threat to their rule comes from inside the country. The question is how to manage a peaceful transition. William Gibson once called cyberspace a consensual illusion. The description is also appropriate for government, kings only exist where there are courtiers willing to bow down to them. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Mealling writes: >> > >Might I suggest all participants in this discussion figure out what you >really want to use DNS for if you were to assume it didn't exist in the >first place. Imagine going back in time to 1986 and explaining to >everyone at the IETF the way things would develop and then, after >they've stopped laughing, imagine what kind of system would have >resulted. My personal suspicion is that two things would be very different: > >There wouldn't be one monolithic namespace/protocol/system. At least two >systems would exist: one for hiding IP network layer topology from apps >and another for describing and naming services for end users. > >The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly >and wouln't be hierarchical. The output of such a system wouldn't be an >IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object >called a 'service'. It might be what people today call "peer to peer" >(although I have yet to find a good definition of what that means) but >that might not be an issue since the names wouldn't be hierarchical. > >What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to >be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it >rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd >think we're good at There are several crucial attributes that are hard to replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same answer everyone else should get. This is the problem with "alternate" roots -- depending on where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also what differentiates it from a search engine -- my applications don't know how to make choices. Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to "Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. Finally, you need locality: people within an organization must be able to create their own names. It may be that some of these requiremets are fundamentally at odds with the notion of full decentralization. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Might I suggest all participants in this discussion figure out what you really want to use DNS for if you were to assume it didn't exist in the first place. Imagine going back in time to 1986 and explaining to everyone at the IETF the way things would develop and then, after they've stopped laughing, imagine what kind of system would have resulted. My personal suspicion is that two things would be very different: There wouldn't be one monolithic namespace/protocol/system. At least two systems would exist: one for hiding IP network layer topology from apps and another for describing and naming services for end users. The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. It might be what people today call "peer to peer" (although I have yet to find a good definition of what that means) but that might not be an issue since the names wouldn't be hierarchical. What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd think we're good at -MM /me goes back to building rockets which is much more fun... -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Johan Henriksson writes: > a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; > with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today, > it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus > we wouldn't be having this discussion. You need an authoritative root. I don't want worldwide TLDs to be diverted by unscrupulous local operators. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
kent crispin writes: > That's sounds good, but in fact, it's utter nonsense. It's like saying that > the only difference between rowboat and a cargo ship is what people believe > about them. In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, > it would simply collapse. Well, no. If everyone started using the same alternate roots, then the alternate roots would effectively be the real roots. > There is far more to the real root system than just human sentiment. There > is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, involved. Nothing prevents the operators of alternate roots from putting the same type of infrastructure into place. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
An update. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/29/business/net.php EU and U.S. clash over control of Net By Tom Wright International Herald Tribune FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 GENEVA The United States and Europe clashed here Thursday in one of their sharpest public disagreements in months, after European Union negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of their effective control of the Internet. The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century. "It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position," said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. "The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet." Delegates meeting in Geneva for the past two weeks had been hoping to reach consensus for a draft document by Friday after two years of debate. The talks on international digital issues, called the World Summit on the Information Society and organized by the United Nations, were scheduled to conclude in November at a meeting in Tunisia. Instead, the talks have deadlocked, with the United States fighting a solitary battle against countries that want to see a global body take over supervision of the Internet. The United States lost its only ally late Wednesday when the EU made a surprise proposal to create an intergovernmental body that would set principles for running the Internet. Currently, the U.S. Commerce Department approves changes to the Internet's "root zone files," which are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, a nonprofit organization based in Marina del Rey, California. more ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
I believe the system described in the cited paper does exactly the reverse of what's being discussed here. CHORD and its relatives provide an alternative way of serving the data, but the hierarchical structure of domain names remains the same. If I understand the intent of this thread, the desire is to create a P2P naming system, similar to a web of trust, that does not require a hierarchical naming system and the administrative machinery needed to maintain that naming system. That is, I thought the thrust of this thread is how to create an alternative to the IANA, not how to how to create an alternative to the root servers. Steve Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p DNS substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for others. http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/178.pdf Regards, Elwyn Davies Johan Henriksson wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a "substitute" in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p DNS substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for others. http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/178.pdf Regards, Elwyn Davies Johan Henriksson wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a "substitute" in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
Hi, Although what WSIS may or may not decide is undoubtedly of interest to the Internet community, I really think it is a distraction here and now until there are concrete questions for us to discuss. Our community's route to the WSIS discussions is through the ISOC - where basic membership is free, by the way. Brian Peter Dambier wrote: Alexis Turner wrote: I don't want to clutter up everyone's inboxes with dozens of rants that amount to hyperventilating and lots of "Iiii's!," but if anyone would like to e-mail me off list with their thoughts on the UN's WSIS conference and why having them replace ICANN would be a good/bad thing for the Internet, I would love to hear it. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue - I'm just honestly interested in hearing the various opinions. The issue is a lot bigger than anything I can get my head around right now, and hearing what other people have to say would help me think about it more constructively. I myself am on this list more or less "Just for kicks," or, as I prefer to think of it, "personal edification," but do note that it is possible quotes from your e-mails will make it onto a personal site that I use for my own rambling and probably incoherent research. If you don't want this, just say so. -Alexis PS: Bonus points if you actually read what they are proposing before you respond. Hi Alexis, I followed the discussion list. I could hardly follow it. Is there a UN? To me it looks like a bunch of small and not so small dictators at the table and several rooms full of intelligent people outside. It might be interesting to give them the internet. But how should you do that? What could they do with it? Give them the root. The root operators will laughingly stand up and go away. Each of them will start running his own root on his own hardware. The internet hardware? Belongs to companies that were not allowed to join. How should all the internet operators find out what "the UN" want them to do if they dont allow them in? I dont think anything but a lot of wasted paper will come out of that meeting. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, > Johan Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 25 lines which said: > >> a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; > > Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a "substitute" in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:31:17AM -0400, Will McAfee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ There is no discussion here of a plan to take over IETF job (when you say "our job", I assume, from the mailing list it is posted on, that you refer to IETFers). The root DNS zone or the IP address allocation (the real subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) are not managed by IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:34:06PM -0700, kent crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, it > would simply collapse. You're mixing "the network of root servers" with "the root" (Doc/NTIA). The first is a delicate engineering achievment and is not easy to replace. The second one is just a desk with two civil servants. > There is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, > involved. So, I would rephrase Anthony G. Atkielski's thought experiment: If every root name server operator switches to an "alternate root" tomorrow, then the "real root" won't matter. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Johan Henriksson wrote: Will McAfee writes: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure. Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster, the worst possible thing that could happen to it. Gouvernements are not in charge of DNS and they probably never will be. Who pays for the root-servers? With whom do they have contracts? As long as nobody pays for them they will do what they want. MIL and ARPA will close their service. So will do EDU. The rest will join The Public-Root, ORSC, opennic, ... The UN will talk and talk and ... a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today, it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. of course, a p2p net of that size is a challenge but it's that kind of thing that make engineering fun :) Please have a look at http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason especially the part about bifurcation. Part of it is in english. It is science fiction but it is strong and maybe it will replace DNS some time. There used to be NIS as a competitor to /etc/hosts. DNS has broken a lot of things that used to work with /etc/hosts. NIS did not break anything but it did not scale the way DNS was supposed to. DNS did not scale either. With some 80% of all domains living in ".com" we face a flat file not a tree :) Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 05:40:24AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > Paul Hoffman writes: > > > You talk as if you were a root operator and you know what they would > > do. In fact, you run an alternate root, not a real root, so it seems > > that you knowing what real root operators would do is particularly > > unlikely. > > There really isn't any such thing as a "real root" or "alternate root" > on the Internet, just as paper currency and coins have no "real > value." It all depends on what the majority decides to do. If > everyone switches to an "alternate root" tomorrow, then the "real > root" won't matter. That's sounds good, but in fact, it's utter nonsense. It's like saying that the only difference between rowboat and a cargo ship is what people believe about them. In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, it would simply collapse. There is far more to the real root system than just human sentiment. There is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, involved. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
> Will McAfee writes: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ >> This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever >> owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, >> by the very nature of it's structure. > > Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster, the > worst possible thing that could happen to it. a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today, it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. of course, a p2p net of that size is a challenge but it's that kind of thing that make engineering fun :) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
Paul Hoffman writes: > You talk as if you were a root operator and you know what they would > do. In fact, you run an alternate root, not a real root, so it seems > that you knowing what real root operators would do is particularly > unlikely. There really isn't any such thing as a "real root" or "alternate root" on the Internet, just as paper currency and coins have no "real value." It all depends on what the majority decides to do. If everyone switches to an "alternate root" tomorrow, then the "real root" won't matter. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
At 1:41 AM +0200 9/30/05, Peter Dambier wrote: Give them the root. The root operators will laughingly stand up and go away. Each of them will start running his own root on his own hardware. You talk as if you were a root operator and you know what they would do. In fact, you run an alternate root, not a real root, so it seems that you knowing what real root operators would do is particularly unlikely. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
Alexis Turner wrote: I don't want to clutter up everyone's inboxes with dozens of rants that amount to hyperventilating and lots of "Iiii's!," but if anyone would like to e-mail me off list with their thoughts on the UN's WSIS conference and why having them replace ICANN would be a good/bad thing for the Internet, I would love to hear it. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue - I'm just honestly interested in hearing the various opinions. The issue is a lot bigger than anything I can get my head around right now, and hearing what other people have to say would help me think about it more constructively. I myself am on this list more or less "Just for kicks," or, as I prefer to think of it, "personal edification," but do note that it is possible quotes from your e-mails will make it onto a personal site that I use for my own rambling and probably incoherent research. If you don't want this, just say so. -Alexis PS: Bonus points if you actually read what they are proposing before you respond. Hi Alexis, I followed the discussion list. I could hardly follow it. Is there a UN? To me it looks like a bunch of small and not so small dictators at the table and several rooms full of intelligent people outside. It might be interesting to give them the internet. But how should you do that? What could they do with it? Give them the root. The root operators will laughingly stand up and go away. Each of them will start running his own root on his own hardware. The internet hardware? Belongs to companies that were not allowed to join. How should all the internet operators find out what "the UN" want them to do if they dont allow them in? I dont think anything but a lot of wasted paper will come out of that meeting. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
I don't want to clutter up everyone's inboxes with dozens of rants that amount to hyperventilating and lots of "Iiii's!," but if anyone would like to e-mail me off list with their thoughts on the UN's WSIS conference and why having them replace ICANN would be a good/bad thing for the Internet, I would love to hear it. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue - I'm just honestly interested in hearing the various opinions. The issue is a lot bigger than anything I can get my head around right now, and hearing what other people have to say would help me think about it more constructively. I myself am on this list more or less "Just for kicks," or, as I prefer to think of it, "personal edification," but do note that it is possible quotes from your e-mails will make it onto a personal site that I use for my own rambling and probably incoherent research. If you don't want this, just say so. -Alexis PS: Bonus points if you actually read what they are proposing before you respond. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Will McAfee writes: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure. Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster, the worst possible thing that could happen to it. I'm the king, and you're nothing! That's right, you're the king of nothing. With appologies to Alice and Ralph joelja ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Will McAfee writes: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ > This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever > owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, > by the very nature of it's structure. Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster, the worst possible thing that could happen to it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Fwd: UN plans to take over our job!
-- Forwarded message --From: Will McAfee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Sep 29, 2005 10:22 AM Subject: Re: UN plans to take over our job!To: Doo Timbir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Looking back, I guess I was talking like an idiot. I apologize, for this, was just outraged at this treatment of the Internet as something they owned. And also The Register is no tabloid. =/ On 9/29/05, Doo Timbir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I personally think that it is too late for any group to lay hold of the Internet. The right thing to do is to allow it to be[exist] the way it is period! Sincerely, Doo Timbir.Will McAfee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure.___Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Will, don't believe everything you read on the Web. ISOC is heavily involved on our behalf in the WSIS meetings and despite all the noise I am hopeful that rational results will occur. Brian Will McAfee wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
UN plans to take over our job!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Un subscribe
Un subscribe
Re: Un-subscribing from lists
For all of these, the message must also be in plain-text.
- Original Message -
From: Rush, Otto A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:23 AM
Subject: Un-subscribing from lists
> For all you that do not know how to un-subscribe from a list. Your root
> problem is your sending your mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], when you should be
> sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The below is help text from the list
> server.
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
> This help message is being sent to you from the Majordomo mailing list
> management system at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This is version 1.94.4 of Majordomo.
>
> If you're familiar with mail servers, an advanced user's summary of
> Majordomo's commands appears at the end of this message.
>
> Majordomo is an automated system which allows users to subscribe
> and unsubscribe to mailing lists, and to retrieve files from list
> archives.
>
> You can interact with the Majordomo software by sending it commands
> in the body of mail messages addressed to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> Please do not put your commands on the subject line; Majordomo does
> not process commands in the subject line.
>
> You may put multiple Majordomo commands in the same mail message.
> Put each command on a line by itself.
>
> If you use a "signature block" at the end of your mail, Majordomo may
> mistakenly believe each line of your message is a command; you will
> then receive spurious error messages. To keep this from happening,
> either put a line starting with a hyphen ("-") before your signature,
> or put a line with just the word
>
> end
>
> on it in the same place. This will stop the Majordomo software from
> processing your signature as bad commands.
>
> Here are some of the things you can do using Majordomo:
>
> I. FINDING OUT WHICH LISTS ARE ON THIS SYSTEM
>
> To get a list of publicly-available mailing lists on this system, put the
> following line in the body of your mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> lists
>
> Each line will contain the name of a mailing list and a brief description
> of the list.
>
> To get more information about a particular list, use the "info" command,
> supplying the name of the list. For example, if the name of the list
> about which you wish information is "demo-list", you would put the line
>
> info demo-list
>
> in the body of the mail message.
>
> II. SUBSCRIBING TO A LIST
>
> Once you've determined that you wish to subscribe to one or more lists on
> this system, you can send commands to Majordomo to have it add you to the
> list, so you can begin receiving mailings.
>
> To receive list mail at the address from which you're sending your mail,
> simply say "subscribe" followed by the list's name:
>
> subscribe demo-list
>
> If for some reason you wish to have the mailings go to a different address
> (a friend's address, a specific other system on which you have an account,
> or an address which is more correct than the one that automatically
appears
> in the "From:" header on the mail you send), you would add that address to
> the command. For instance, if you're sending a request from your work
> account, but wish to receive "demo-list" mail at your personal account
> (for which we will use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as an example), you'd put
> the line
>
> subscribe demo-list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> in the mail message body.
>
> Based on configuration decisions made by the list owners, you may be added
> to the mailing list automatically. You may also receive notification
> that an authorization key is required for subscription. Another message
> will be sent to the address to be subscribed (which may or may not be the
> same as yours) containing the key, and directing the user to send a
> command found in that message back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (This can be
> a bit of extra hassle, but it helps keep you from being swamped in extra
> email by someone who forged requests from your address.) You may also
> get a message that your subscription is being forwarded to the list owner
> for approval; some lists have waiting lists, or policies about who may
> subscribe. If your request is forwarded for approval, the list owner
> should contact you soon after your request.
>
> Upon subscribing, you should receive an introductory message, containing
> list policies and features. Save this message for future reference; it
> will also contain exact directions for unsubscribing. If you lose the
> intro mail and would like another copy of the policies, send this message
> to [EMAIL PROT
Un-subscribing from lists
For all you that do not know how to un-subscribe from a list. Your root
problem is your sending your mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], when you should be
sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The below is help text from the list
server.
Hope this helps
This help message is being sent to you from the Majordomo mailing list
management system at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is version 1.94.4 of Majordomo.
If you're familiar with mail servers, an advanced user's summary of
Majordomo's commands appears at the end of this message.
Majordomo is an automated system which allows users to subscribe
and unsubscribe to mailing lists, and to retrieve files from list
archives.
You can interact with the Majordomo software by sending it commands
in the body of mail messages addressed to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Please do not put your commands on the subject line; Majordomo does
not process commands in the subject line.
You may put multiple Majordomo commands in the same mail message.
Put each command on a line by itself.
If you use a "signature block" at the end of your mail, Majordomo may
mistakenly believe each line of your message is a command; you will
then receive spurious error messages. To keep this from happening,
either put a line starting with a hyphen ("-") before your signature,
or put a line with just the word
end
on it in the same place. This will stop the Majordomo software from
processing your signature as bad commands.
Here are some of the things you can do using Majordomo:
I. FINDING OUT WHICH LISTS ARE ON THIS SYSTEM
To get a list of publicly-available mailing lists on this system, put the
following line in the body of your mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
lists
Each line will contain the name of a mailing list and a brief description
of the list.
To get more information about a particular list, use the "info" command,
supplying the name of the list. For example, if the name of the list
about which you wish information is "demo-list", you would put the line
info demo-list
in the body of the mail message.
II. SUBSCRIBING TO A LIST
Once you've determined that you wish to subscribe to one or more lists on
this system, you can send commands to Majordomo to have it add you to the
list, so you can begin receiving mailings.
To receive list mail at the address from which you're sending your mail,
simply say "subscribe" followed by the list's name:
subscribe demo-list
If for some reason you wish to have the mailings go to a different address
(a friend's address, a specific other system on which you have an account,
or an address which is more correct than the one that automatically appears
in the "From:" header on the mail you send), you would add that address to
the command. For instance, if you're sending a request from your work
account, but wish to receive "demo-list" mail at your personal account
(for which we will use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as an example), you'd put
the line
subscribe demo-list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the mail message body.
Based on configuration decisions made by the list owners, you may be added
to the mailing list automatically. You may also receive notification
that an authorization key is required for subscription. Another message
will be sent to the address to be subscribed (which may or may not be the
same as yours) containing the key, and directing the user to send a
command found in that message back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (This can be
a bit of extra hassle, but it helps keep you from being swamped in extra
email by someone who forged requests from your address.) You may also
get a message that your subscription is being forwarded to the list owner
for approval; some lists have waiting lists, or policies about who may
subscribe. If your request is forwarded for approval, the list owner
should contact you soon after your request.
Upon subscribing, you should receive an introductory message, containing
list policies and features. Save this message for future reference; it
will also contain exact directions for unsubscribing. If you lose the
intro mail and would like another copy of the policies, send this message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
intro demo-list
(substituting, of course, the real name of your list for "demo-list").
III.UNSUBSCRIBING FROM MAILING LISTS
Your original intro message contains the exact command which should be
used to remove your address from the list. However, in most cases, you
may simply send the command "unsubscribe" followed by the list name:
unsubscribe demo-list
(This command may fail if your provider has changed the way your
address is shown in your mail.)
To remove an address other than the one from which you're sending
the request, give that address in the command:
unsubscribe demo-list [EMAIL P
