[discuss] Real world Impact of multiple roots

Mon Feb 3 12:17:47 UTC 2014

At 05:00 03/02/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>On 03/02/2014 12:06, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> > Hi! Folks,
> >
> > Are you not getting bored repeating the same misreading for 14 years as
> > if you had discovered the hidden face of the moon?
> >
> > The second paragraph simplly says that users are able to be free and
> > there are intelligent ways not to be obliged to see what one does not
> > want to see. People are free to say what they want, and free not to
> > receive what the do not want.
>
>I'm sorry, but that is your interpretation of the words, not
>what the words mean.

We are in total agreement. When I use the word "intelligent ways" it 
is the IUse (intelligent Use which refers to technical use 
[hardware/software] as opposed to usage that refers to community brainware).

>The words are a technical statement: if the root splits, users
>might be directed to a different web site than the one originally
>intended to have a given URL.

Absolutely.

>There is no judgment in that text,
>nothing about "freedom" or seeing "what one does not want to see."
>Those are your words, not an implication of the IAB's words.

These are my words and RFC 6852 words. The RFC 6852 modern paradigm 
implies that the running code (documented by IAB) has met a living 
mode success (resulting in global communities and a huge bounty). My 
evaluation, or historic judgment, is that this was accepted by usage 
for due to the capacity of flexibility in its use.

>FYI, the IAB's words originated as a formal comment to ICANN
>sent in September 1999 (under my name, as IAB Chair at the time):
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce-old/ut9aeZoSbY4_GxMdmhyEDBX_Dvg%3D/

Deep thanks for this input. Now, we know where the problem comes 
from. I suppose that it will considered on the IUCG site?
As an analyst, however, I see where is the point of controversy. You 
start in assuming:

1. The Internet, to remain a global network, technically requires the 
existence of a globally unique public name space.
2. The DNS name space is a hierarchical name space derived from a 
single, globally unique root.
3. This is inherent in the design of the DNS system.

Point 3 looks related to 1 and 2, but is only related to point 2, 
because there is no logical relation between 1 and 2.
- as a Anglophone you have a crown-down hierarchical pragmaticaly 
local vision you translate into the "unique root" concept,
- as Francophone I have an equalitarian heterarchical metavision: I 
can only read point 1 through a "unique grassroot" concept.

Would this memo of yours have been published as an ISO draft, i.e. 
bilingually, it could not say this. This would have saved us many 
hours of misunderstanding: the controversy would have clarified by 
then as it has now. Because the DNS works, until now. This now is 
when ONS, e-sovereignty issues, Snowden, etc. issues are raised to be 
discussed in Sao Paulo.

This being said: point 1 and point 2 are perfectly true. They are 
orthogonal. This means that point 3 is not a deduction but an 
implicit induction. The root inherence is not in the name space but 
in the DNS.

In any case your quote and your passed text is IMHO the most 
important contribution to the Sao Paulo preparation. It justifies the 
ICANN's role IRT. the IN-root, and the complementarity in the grassroots.

> > Please do your home work on this issue before showing yourself entirely
> > out of scope; One thing you can do is to read the ICANN authoritative
> > position on the matter.
> > http://www.icann.org/en/about/unique-authoritative-root.
>
>The IAB was glad to see that at that time, since it entirely agreed
>with the IAB position.

Absolutely: "As described in a recent proposal within the IETF, this 
"class" facility allows an alternate DNS namespace to be operated 
from different root servers in a manner that does not interfere with 
the stable operation of the existing authoritative root-server 
system." Moreover that this recent proposal was introduced by your 
successor as the IAB chair.

ICANN there clarifies the point of controversy. In your position and 
RFC you presuppose that the DNS system is the only possible system to 
navigate the global name space and that it has only one authoritative root.

ICANN maintains that the DNS covers the entire name space, but adds 
that it also permits multiple non interfering visions of this name 
space (classes). This confirms that it adheres to the grassroots 
concept and that it avoids the interferences with its own root.

My part is not technical, only logical. It is not up to me to say 
that the DNS as documented by the IETF can do it, but what ICANN says 
is that its current policy enforcement is based on the belief that it 
can do it.

> > If you want to
> > know more about the internet as it is and disucss it less as it is not;
> > http://caida.org.
>
>Which particular aspect of CAIDA's view of the Internet do you mean?
>There's a vast amount of information there and at other measurement
>sites.

It is just a link among others where to learn some political humility 
when facing the technical reality as other CS sites remind us the 
same political humility in front of the societal reality, 
or  business sites in front of the economic reality.

The digital chaos governance does not appear to be possibly one sided.

Besr

M G

>    Brian
>
> >
> > Sorry to be rough, but reading the same irrelevant thing for the 250th
> > time... obliges to respond the same thing for the 500th time to students
> > or readers who believe they discovered the visible face of the moon :-)
> >
> > M G
> >
> > At 21:19 02/02/2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> >> The second paragraph sums it up nicely
> >
> >> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [discuss-bounces at 1net.org] on behalf of
> >> Bob Omondi [omondibob at gmail.com]
> >> This is what the IAB had to say about this in may 2000 (
> >> 
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
> >> )
> >>
> >> "Summary
> >>
> >> "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a
> >> globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a
> >> hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.
> >> This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.
> >> Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one
> >> root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a set of
> >> coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming authority.
> >> "Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
> >> strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
> >> link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against the
> >> will of the web page designers."
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss