[discuss] Root servers yet again (Re: Roadmap for globalizing IANA)

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Tue Mar 4 16:38:44 UTC 2014

I don’t see a disagreement here.

Just a number of corrections to incorrect statements.  And a rebuttal to some of the socio-political iconography.

I also don’t see an answer to the question about leakage, since the original answer misstated what “leakage” meant in the original question.  So, we’re still waiting for that.

The rest of the stuff below is just an attempt to stir the pot, and bears no relationship to the question, which was asked in a neutral fashion.

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Michel Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:26 AM
To: carlos at lacnic.net; David Conrad
Cc: 1 Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Root servers yet again (Re: Roadmap for globalizing IANA)

At 10:56 04/03/2014, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:

I '+1' every one of David's comments.

This is an exciting things. A fundamental disagreement has arized  between the grand parents, parents and childs (cf.Bill Manning). Who is authoritative on the children's life?

From what is being said on this list everyone agrees that:

- parents (ICANN and IANA) can born new childs (TLDs) if the approval of grand parents (NTIA and USG).
- grand-parents make sure that parents raise their children correctly (they keep the root in turne with their demands)
- childs do what they want (if they do not bother to ask the parents) they declare their own additional nameservers.

We can observe that there are two attitudes:

1. ICANNers who thinks this is fine, want to practice birth control in enlarging the family, consider that Telcos "are in the family" (Fadi Chehade), and in some way the neigbhours contesting the family governance style, should be associated (globalization).

2. the childs' friends who start thinking the kids have come of age, and contest the grand-parents' care as oppressing, and the parents attitude as oppressive.

The two attitudes blatantly reflect in terminology: the use of the most common words are opposed as being an emmancipation attempt. There are "family correct terms" and forbidden matters.

An analysis of common sense would lead me to conclude a "sickness of youth", a "collective crisis of adolescence". While socially disturbing, wa all know it is going to self-organize in the bad or good way things usually do: by maturity of all the involved parties. But after how many mutual vituperations? We are all familiar of this kind of stituation we hower always repeat from age to age, in every situation, for everything. After a while, negentropy becomes entropic.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:20 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org<mailto:drc at virtualized.org>> wrote:
On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil <info at vgnic.org<mailto:info at vgnic.org>> wrote:
> At 02:45 04/03/2014, nathalie coupet wrote:
>> Could you, jefsey, Hebe, and others, please address the issue of leakage. How could you prevent it (do you want to prevent it)?
> As David Conrad mentions it, the leakage is a pollution of DNS buffers by a different vision of the name space. This would occur in the top zone if there were two different identical TLDs, the zones of which would be different, documented by two different root server systems of thee same class.
No.  "Pollution" (or perhaps more descriptively cross-contamination) would occur in caching servers (and applications that implemented their own resolvers like, say, most web browsers) when they queried the name servers that offered the different namespaces.  The end result, particularly for end users who have no idea what the DNS actually is, would be that it would be impossible to tell what a particular name pointed to at any given time.  That is, when you sit down at a coffee shop and try to browse "www.example.com<http://www.example.com>" you could get something _completely unrelated_ to what you get when you browse "www.example.com<http://www.example.com>" from your home. Worse, the end user _has no way to figure out which example.com<http://example.com> she is going to go to_.
> Please note that:
> * The ICANN root is authoritative: the NTIA decides which servers are to be listed for the different TLDs.
Please stop spreading blatant and obvious misinformation.  It is not helping the discussion.
NTIA does NOT decide which servers are listed for TLDs. The TLD administrators decide this. NTIA ensures that ICANN follows its processes when proposing changes initiated by the TLD administrators.
> * The ORSN root is non-authoritative: it reports the configuration authoritatively indicated by the TLD Managers.
You are using the DNS term of art "non-authoritative" wrong.  Both ORSN and the normal root servers run authoritative servers and respond authoritatively to queries for the root zone.
> it reports the configuration authoritatively indicated by the TLD Managers.
As does the normal root servers.
ORSN, by serving the root zone data generated by the existing root zone partners, does _NOTHING_ different that the normal root servers.  The only practical difference between ORSN and the normal root servers is the ORSN infrastructure is currently far weaker/less diverse than the existing root servers.
> This is the difference between monarchy and polycracy
This is pure fantasy.
> In a non-attacked class,
No idea what you mean by this.
> leaks can only happen if an authoritative root administrator decides the seizure of TLD.
No. Really. Just No.  If you actually believe this, you clearly do not understand the technology.
Imagine your coffee shop decides to use an alternative namespace.  Since very few people know/care about this alternative namespace, there are very few names in it.  Every time you try to go to something like Facebook, Amazon, Tmall, Maktoob, etc., you get "name does not exist" (NXDOMAIN) errors. Frustrated, you go home. However, because DNS responses are cached, when you connect to your home network and try to go to any of those names, you _still_ get "name does not exist". This is just one of the many forms of leakage (I described another form above).
It would be extremely helpful if you would stop attempting to confuse people.
> VGNICs reduce the risks from this happening.
Since I am still unclear as to what "VGNICs" are, I'll take your word on this.
> The DNS IETF model supports 65,365 roots, one for each class. The sole class that people discuss on this list is the "IN" ICANN/NTIA class. We call this attitude "the BUG", i.e. being unipolarly global.
I fail to see the value in attempting to redefine common terms.  For an actual definition of the term "bug", see http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Science/Grace%20Hooper.html
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>

Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
h<http://cagnazzo.name>ttp:// cagnazzo.me<http://cagnazzo.me>
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140304/621420a9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list