North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Statements against new.net?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > >To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular > >efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the > >"Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head. > > > >Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when > >the IAB formulated this document? > > > .... > > > >What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, > >especially given the timing? > > Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we > wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas. These efforts had been going on for *years* before this document was inked, with actors like Kaspureff(sp?) et. al. You'll forgive me if I find the timing of this document somewhat coincidental with the timing of the process that has left us with ICANN. > And the fact that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones > head" is due to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite > large; local disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net. Disruption? What disruption? People making a concious decision where to point resolution to is "disruptive?" > >Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address > >this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of > >any community would. My understanding through following the various > >mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this > >fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still > >remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that > >a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes > >the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the > >virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing > >to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and > >that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always > >a little broken.) > > If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to > consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a > political statement. But it didn't say that. >From RFC2826: "...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming authority." This statement in the context of the timing, pretty much sums up the issue.