Re: Statements against new.net?

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103131054220.42622-100000@localhost>, Patrick Greenw
ell writes:

(Portions of post elided, in the name of brevity.)
> The fact that there currently exists several different operations root
> server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact,
> if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC 
> root servers.
>
> 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.  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.
>
...
> 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.  It said that there needs 
to be one root, regardless of how that is chosen.  The notion that "the
various operators act as they best see fit" is precisely the kind of 
thing we want to discourage, since that leads towards inconsistency.

                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb