Mr. Simon and Everyone,
It is not surprising I am sure to anyone here, that
you would take this position. However you assertion
here is incorrect as is well known and also well
documented as well
Craig Simon wrote:
Ken,
I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words.
Ken,
It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any
traffic.
Regards,
Werner
Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at
IANA issued an electronic directive that
incorrect. there was a delay in the updates to the zone files across the
network
On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Werner Staub wrote:
Ken,
It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any
traffic.
Regards,
Werner
Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for
At 11:54 AM 9/13/99 +0200, you wrote:
Ken,
It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any
traffic.
"did not" is true.
"could not" is false.
--
"So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Jay,
You wrote:
This is right out of the Dave Crocker
play book. Try and discredit a 20,000
word summary, by focusing on a single
statement.
I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request.
If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask
for
Ken,
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
By temporarily disrupting portions
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at
IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for
copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially
disrupting global Internet
Sorry, the previous post was in relation to the earlier draft.
It wasn't that it was disruptive to operations. It was POLITCALLY scary...
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Ken Freed wrote:
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation,
Werner and all,
I am afraid you are incorrect Werner. The calls into NSI and the
NTIA from DN owners were frantic as many DN's were not resolving
or doing so very slowly at the time. So much so, that the NTIA had
to DIRECT Jon to switch back. He complied reluctantly.
Werner Staub wrote:
Another country heard from.
The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of
traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone.
Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door.
And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
Greg and all,
In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers"
DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only
agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description
of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers.
It
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what
they say.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Greg and all,
In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers"
DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only
agree
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what
they say.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams
I didn't inhale. Honest. I was just being polite.
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote:
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night
Franky!
ROFLMAO! Unfortunatly no. I don't smoke that rope!
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that
night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere.
-riz
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote:
They say that night Jon was smoking
HOW I SPENT MY SUMMER VACTION. . .
Analyzing ICANN
by Ken Freed
http://www.media-visions.com/icann.htm
Introducing ICANN
The committee that would be king.
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-intro.htm
From gTLD-MoU to ICANN
A
Ken,
Could you comment on the following excerpt from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by
redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world
Internet traffic."
Regards,
Werner
--
Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct
Werner --
What sort of comment would you like?
He was in a position to impact things,
He could. He did. What else can I say?
For the historic record on it,
check out Tony Rutkowki's
website or Ellen Rony's site.
Links are posted at --
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm
Thanks for
Ken,
I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words.
disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst
1: a to break apart, rupture; b to throw into disorder
2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of
My reading of events was that Postel's directive *reoriented* part
Craig --
Please deal with substantive issues,
the here and now, not ancient history.
Linguistic nit picks do not serve the
larger Internet community. Okay?
Thanks.
-- ken
Ken,
I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words.
disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst
Ken,
You said, more precisely, that Jon Postel temporarily
"disrupted Internet traffic" by "redirecting" the root
servers. Could you explain whose traffic was disrupted,
and how?
Regards,
Werner
Ken Freed wrote:
Werner --
What sort of comment would you like?
He was in a position to
Werner and all,
Werner, please review the relative E-Mail list archives
for this information. Much of the information you seek
is there in some detail. Or, you could submit a FOIA
to the DOC and NTIA for this information as well on the
relative dates in question.
Werner Staub wrote:
Ken,
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig --
Please deal with substantive issues,
the here and now, not ancient history.
Linguistic nit picks do not serve the
larger Internet community. Okay?
Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare
one site to be the master
At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig --
Please deal with substantive issues,
the here and now, not ancient history.
Linguistic nit picks do not serve the
larger Internet community. Okay?
Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 02:37:53PM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig --
Please deal with substantive issues,
the here and now, not ancient history.
Linguistic nit picks do not serve the
larger Internet community. Okay?
Sorry, Ken, I concur with
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare
one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt
world Internet traffic.
This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book.
Craig and all --
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
By temporarily disrupting
28 matches
Mail list logo
