RE: Statements against new.net?

["Mike Batchelor" <mikebat () tmcs net>]

> OK.. I'm going to cite chapter and verse:
>
> 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.

The author started out by referring to the public name space - good, I like
that.  But he forgot the word "zone" at the end of the second sentence.
Public name space is implemented using DNS via the root zone.

>    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.

Keep adding the word "zone" after the word root.... bear with me.

>    That one root must be supported by a set
                  ^zone
>    of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
>    authority.

Here is where I disagree.

>    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.

This is a problem that can be solved.  The author of this document wants you
to believe that it cannot be solved.  That is his agenda, and it drives his
foregone conclusion to exactly the place he wants it to go.  The deck is
stacked, I tell you!  No argument for why it is unsolveable is even
presented.  The author takes it for granted that everyone agrees with him.
You are just expected to know that it can't be solved!

> RFC2826 SAYS YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF.
>
> Now, what non-technical value judgment did you say that RFC2826 was
> making for you?  It's not a "value judgment" that using multiple roots
> with DNS results in inconsistencies, it's *the way DNS works*.

Yes it is a value judgement.  He has determined that the problem is
insoluble.  It isn't.  And we don't have to abandon DNS as the nameservice
protocol for the public name space.  All that needs to be changed is how
each recursing DNS client cache gets its glue for the root.  Are we
incapable of coming up with an out-of-band method for distributing a 60K
text file that scales well?  I think not.

> And sometime in May, we'll have the complaints that IP addresses are
> political because they only allow 256 values per octet, and a
> class-action lawsuit is planned for the number 257, 258, -3, and all
> the fractions.

This is a matter of mathematics, not politics.  How to get root glue to all
clients that need it is a technical topic.  Who should be the distributor of
that glue is a political topic.  This is the crux of the matter.

> Now - I'll *readily* agree that "ICANN versus new.net" is political,
> and probably worth discussing.  However, I'm going to have to start
> putting Bozo Flags on people who *still* claim that RFC2826 is political
> just because it points out that Things Will Provably Break if you have
> conflicting roots.

Well DUH!  I totally agree that conflicting roots break things.  But I don't
think that conflicting roots is an inevitable consequence of having multiple
roots, or even multiple root zones.

I still say it's a self-serving statement with political motivations, and I
hope I have adequately explained why I think that.  I don't expect you to
agree with me, but I hope I'm not as Bozotic as you thought at first.

---
"The avalanche has already begun.  It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -
Kosh