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
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
entire discussion by smart people deleted for brevity
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 :-)
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 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
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
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,
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,
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
entire discussion by smart people deleted for brevity
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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Mealling writes:
entire discussion by smart people deleted for brevity
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
*
* 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:
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?
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
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
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
-- 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
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,
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
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,
58 matches
Mail list logo
