Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:03:39 +1000
I was really enjoying Simons post till this bit ...

In this posting:

1.  In January Postel Segemented the Legacy Root Servers. Responsible
    behaviour?  No.

2.  Postel creates TLD's at his own beck and call. And has created several
    this year without consultation with anyone.

3.  What RSC is run by a single individual?  None to my knowledge?

4.  RSC's do not add TLDs on a whim without consultation with their members.

>The only thing that *is* really silly is the notion of using a completely
>alternative domain name space that the existing, core root servers that
>service 99%+ of the internet DNS resolvers cannot see,

Firstly your claim of 99% is really way off mark.  You've ot no evidence to
suggest such, but I have evidence to suggest a higher percentage actually
do use Alternatives.

>formed out of a dislike for the existing processes of operating root servers.

There is no dislike to the way the legacy root servers are operated.  None
whatso ever.  That has never been an issue.  Not in three years, not even
by the IAHC, not by AURSC, not by me.

>The big problem with this isn't that nearly everyone can't see them - the
>problems would really start if a statistically significant number of DNS
>resolvers *could* see them - because there can be more than one of them!

More than one of what?

>THere is no limit to the number of people who can create alternative root
>structures, and nothing stopping them. Indeed, when run in private, between

This is very true.  That's why credability and authentication is required
and that's done through cooperative agreements.  Just like the Legacy Servers.

Now the IRSC is recognised also, it simply adds more weight.

You have the Academic Root Server Network (Legacy) and the Commercial Root
Server network.  Seems to be falling very much in that direction.

>consenting adults operating internet connected organisations, it is simply
>another (private) use of the internet to run applications across it -
>doesn't affect the rest of us, positively *or* negatively.

Yes, this is totally true.  Until one of your clients wants to access these
"private" databases and you don't allow it. 

Your no longer providing full internet access.  You are in fact censoring
the access the user has to suite your own political motivations.

Shame really.

But it is still a CHOICE.

>However, they would be an issue for the rest of the planet if they started
>actually being *used* by significant numbers of users in the world instead
>of the 'real' root servers.

All Root Servers properly configured are REAL ROOT SERVERS.  

All servers visible on the public internet are for use by the public.  And
Significant numbers are using alternatives, you just don't want to believe it.

>When it comes to alternative universe #1 and alternative universe #2  both
>deciding that, within their universes, that they will both create a
>(different) top level domain but with the same name (hmmm, lets say
>".UNSTABLE" just for instance), then you get an unresolvable conflict of

No, not in the case of AURSC.  There is a Universe and a Galaxy.  The
Galaxy being the Legacy Root Servers, they now form a subsection of the
data AURSC provides to all IRSC hosts.

The Universe is the data submitted to AURSC for inclusion in IRSC's data.

Very simple.

No conflicts and the stakeholders are in control.  Nothing magic about that.

>Now , where multiple disparate confederations do this, the answer to a DNS
>query in the .UNSTABLE domain goes from being either the correct answer or
>"not found" (if you're not using that confederation's root servers), which
>is already bad enough, and instead it becomes "alledgedly correct answer
>#1", or "alledgedly correct answer #2" or "not found" depending on your
>choice of root DNS server. Clearly untenable!

Simon, you'r speaking from speculation.  You have clearly not tested the
authenticity of the AURSC servers.

>"Two men say they're jesus, one of them must be wrong".

Or both.  Some people don't believe in Jesus.

And a noun is spelt with a capital letter.

>In other words, in case it's not obvious, the only stable number of
>authoratative root name server farms is *one*. Not any number greater than

Nope not true at all.

>one. The notion that a new root name server confederation is somehow more
>worthy than the existing one is a non sequitur, and I suggest we

I'll agree with that.  There is no more worthyness from the Legacy Servers
as there is to AURSC.  They are both operational and available to users.

Do you drive a Model T Ford by any chance?

>concentrate on issues related to the globally accessible namespace and to
>changing it _in place_ in rational manners if and as needed.

OK, there is no question that Master data must be controled and unique, and
it is.  THere is no question about that or people just won't use
alternatives, which is why they are called alternate.

>The other aspect, of course, in which the 'real' root servers are distinct
>to other confederations is that the 'real' ones are subject to huge, long
>winded, time consuming, public discussions prior to the creation of
>critical things like new top level domains.

You have to be joking.  

Long winded.  What Jon Postel sitting down saying OK lets issue .cc and .io
without any consultation with anyone?

Oh come on.  There is no discussion about .ORB and it's well on it's way to
being included.

And what about Jon Postel segmenting the root servers earlier this year?
That's real Stability innit!  What a mess that wasy for 48 hours.

I'm sorry, you are beleiveing what the preacher tells you without doing any
form of investigation or trial.

I'll gladly step down if you can prove, by USE that AURSC segments or
fragments or distrupts any legacy data.  You show me IN EVIDENCE that AURSC
causes a problem.

You've already stated that it doesn't matter.  Now you claim it does.

Simon, I use to have a lot of respect for you, but now I see you're like
many of the twonks who just wish to badger and mislead.

>Those processes are,
>hollistically, quite a good idea, because they make it very hard for
>whimsical or stupid changes to be made at a critical point in the internet
>(one of the few single points of failure in the whole game) 

Like Postel segmenting 8 of the 13 root servers.  Oh yes I can see how that
happens.  NOT.

>But new top level domains in other universes can get created at the whim of
>a single individual. This *can* actually work if the individual is seen by
>the community to be a responsible, careful, and caring person in the realm
>we're dealing with.

A single individual?  I don't know of any Root Server Confederation that is
a single individual.  Are you - yet again - trying to mislead people?

>Indeed, it is largely due to the care exercised by Jon
>Postel to date that the whole shooting match works as well as it does - and
>now the stability he helped architect is being gradually migrated to a new,
>controlled, structure to help it remain stable.  

But he hasn't shown care.  He deliberatley segmented the root servers in
January in hpe that the IAHC TLDs could be added without any kind of fuss.
It's well documented and reported.  He even admits it.

This is "care" and "responsibility"

>But ... imagine if some other individual was not nearly as caring, or
>consistent, and as the operator of an alternative confederation, decided to
>actually create new top level domains in response to a whim, or a joke?

I haven't come across a single individual in that position yet.  Certainly
no TLD's have been created as a joke or on a whim.

And all TLDs are created with considerable consultation and research.

>Such a person might, clearly, decide to revoke them with just as little
>consideration, or due process, and that would literally ransom the world to
>the moods of that person on a given day. Now that IS scary, isn't it?...

Yes it is.  Aren't you just glad AURSC has more than 4 people responsible
for it.

Can't say the same for COM.AU and NET.AU can we?  Changes to policy every
six months to suite the revenue uptake to suit the companies concerned.

Especially CCA.  Unquestionable.   Sad to say it too.

At least the stability shown by AURSC and AHNET are strong and founded.
There have been NO POLICY CHANGES in two years and certanly no suggestions
of improvement by the members and commercial entities involved.

Funny that.  Guess these policies work better.

Simon, time to smell the roses.  Elvis is DEAD.  Long gone.

The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convey Member (not employee)	  AURSC
Adam Todd                                 Personal  
at&#167;aus  or				   http://adam.says.sheesh
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network
AU Internet News
AU Internet User Mail List
Received on Fri Jun 19 1998 - 16:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC