Mailing List Archive

eDNS - Temporary Freeze
Because of the enormous amount of interest in eDNS
and the rapid growth of Registration Authorities (RAs)
and TLD Registries under the eDNS plan, a temporary
Freeze has been placed on the eDNS Root Zone [1].

This Freeze should allow all of the major Root Name
Server Confederations to come to a round table consensus
with "dot" clearly in the center of the table, out of reach
of everyone's arms, military or otherwise.

The major Root Name Server Confederations at this
point in time are:

AlterNIC - ?? Servers
eDNS - 5 Servers (FROZEN)
InterNIC - 9 Legacy Servers
name.space - 12 Servers
NSI/ISI - 4 Servers

Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should
encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers
in the above Confederations to represent them at these
historic round table discussions which will be largely held
in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional
Internet forums.

Think global and act local...

===============

The consensus needed covers...

1. What are the confederations common guidelines
on name syntax ?
- One letter TLDs ?
- Two letter TLDs ?
- Dashes ?
- Plurals ?

2. How will the confederations be "synced" ?
(i.e. How will they exchange info on which
TLDs they support ?)

3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD
will all Confederations agree to use the same
TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ?

===============

I think that we should also add that there are CURRENTLY
five parties at the Confederation Round Table.
(AlterNIC, eDNS, InterNIC, name.space, NSI/ISI)
There are clearly more Confederations coming. Consensus
on the above basic issues is needed before the Root Name
Server Confederation round table grows larger.


[1] ===========================================
----------
From: edns-root@MCS.Net[SMTP:edns-root@MCS.Net]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:14 AM
To: edns-operators@MCS.Net
Cc: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; newdom@ar.com
Subject: Violations of Charter


Over the last couple of weeks, eDNS has been grappling
with apparent unfair practices with regards to TLD allocation
and Registration Authority (RA) supervision. In an attempt to
fairly address these issues, a Root Server Council (RSC)
was formed for the sole purpose of interpreting the
existing eDNS Charter.

On Wednesday, the RSC issued a list of RAs and TLDs
that appeared to be deficient in adhering to the letter and
spirit of the Charter. Since that time, one RA has challanged
the basis for this summary. Since these are difficult decisions
and it is often hard to decide where to draw the line, the RSC
felt that it would be better to decide these issues using a
substantial public comment process from all Internet
stakeholders, not just the RSC or other parties
involved in eDNS.

For these reasons, the RSC today has decided the
following:

- As of today, the RSC will place a temporary moratorium
on the issuance of any new TLDs, RAs, or Registries.
The only activity that will be approved are owner
submitted Deletes, and Modifies required for
system integretity.

- The difficult questions facing the RSC will be
brought before the entire Internet community
for public review. Upon consensus, the questionable
RAs and TLDs will either be deleted, modified, or
accepted.

- This process is to begin with Indusrty stakeholders
at the upcoming Interop Conference in Las Vegas.
The RSC also plans to request a meeting with the
U.S. Government on this topic, as well as
seek input from Internet and International
organizations and Governments.

Additional comments will be released before the
upcoming Interop BOF (Birds of a Feather) Meeting
schedule for Tuesday, May 6th at 8:00 p.m. The entire
Internet community is invited to participate in this public
comment process to help shape the future direction
of eDNS.

RSC.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

===============================================






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
Because of the enormous amount of interest in eDNS
and the rapid growth of Registration Authorities (RAs)
and TLD Registries under the eDNS plan, a temporary
Freeze has been placed on the eDNS Root Zone [1].

This Freeze should allow all of the major Root Name
Server Confederations to come to a round table consensus
with "dot" clearly in the center of the table, out of reach
of everyone's arms, military or otherwise.

The major Root Name Server Confederations at this
point in time are:

AlterNIC - ?? Servers
eDNS - 5 Servers (FROZEN)
InterNIC - 9 Legacy Servers
name.space - 12 Servers
NSI/ISI - 4 Servers

Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should
encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers
in the above Confederations to represent them at these
historic round table discussions which will be largely held
in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional
Internet forums.

Think global and act local...

===============

The consensus needed covers...

1. What are the confederations common guidelines
on name syntax ?
- One letter TLDs ?
- Two letter TLDs ?
- Dashes ?
- Plurals ?

2. How will the confederations be "synced" ?
(i.e. How will they exchange info on which
TLDs they support ?)

3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD
will all Confederations agree to use the same
TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ?

===============

I think that we should also add that there are CURRENTLY
five parties at the Confederation Round Table.
(AlterNIC, eDNS, InterNIC, name.space, NSI/ISI)
There are clearly more Confederations coming. Consensus
on the above basic issues is needed before the Root Name
Server Confederation round table grows larger.


[1] ===========================================
----------
From: edns-root@MCS.Net[SMTP:edns-root@MCS.Net]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 11:14 AM
To: edns-operators@MCS.Net
Cc: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; newdom@ar.com
Subject: Violations of Charter


Over the last couple of weeks, eDNS has been grappling
with apparent unfair practices with regards to TLD allocation
and Registration Authority (RA) supervision. In an attempt to
fairly address these issues, a Root Server Council (RSC)
was formed for the sole purpose of interpreting the
existing eDNS Charter.

On Wednesday, the RSC issued a list of RAs and TLDs
that appeared to be deficient in adhering to the letter and
spirit of the Charter. Since that time, one RA has challanged
the basis for this summary. Since these are difficult decisions
and it is often hard to decide where to draw the line, the RSC
felt that it would be better to decide these issues using a
substantial public comment process from all Internet
stakeholders, not just the RSC or other parties
involved in eDNS.

For these reasons, the RSC today has decided the
following:

- As of today, the RSC will place a temporary moratorium
on the issuance of any new TLDs, RAs, or Registries.
The only activity that will be approved are owner
submitted Deletes, and Modifies required for
system integretity.

- The difficult questions facing the RSC will be
brought before the entire Internet community
for public review. Upon consensus, the questionable
RAs and TLDs will either be deleted, modified, or
accepted.

- This process is to begin with Indusrty stakeholders
at the upcoming Interop Conference in Las Vegas.
The RSC also plans to request a meeting with the
U.S. Government on this topic, as well as
seek input from Internet and International
organizations and Governments.

Additional comments will be released before the
upcoming Interop BOF (Birds of a Feather) Meeting
schedule for Tuesday, May 6th at 8:00 p.m. The entire
Internet community is invited to participate in this public
comment process to help shape the future direction
of eDNS.

RSC.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

===============================================







- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
Hi. I'm a root name server operator. Jim Fleming wrote:

> Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should
> encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers
> in the above Confederations to represent them at these
> historic round table discussions which will be largely held
> in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional
> Internet forums.

I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> Hi. I'm a root name server operator. Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > Everyone, especially ISPs and NANOG members, should
> > encourage the owner/operators of the Root Name Servers
> > in the above Confederations to represent them at these
> > historic round table discussions which will be largely held
> > in the open environment of the Internet and in traditional
> > Internet forums.
>
>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.

Really?

Explain this trace please.

traceroute to a.root-servers.net (198.41.0.4), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 Loop-Core1-TX12-0.mcs.net (192.160.127.110) 1.346 ms 1.068 ms 0.994 ms
2 mcsnet-gw.chicago.good.net (207.98.189.129) 1.753 ms 1.878 ms 1.755 ms
3 vienna.good.net (207.98.128.3) 19.578 ms 20.570 ms 26.779 ms
4 maeeast.bbnplanet.net (192.41.177.1) 25.668 ms 27.683 ms 26.536 ms
5 collegepk-br1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.1.17) 32.997 ms 34.288 ms 28.389 ms
6 collegepk-cr3.bbnplanet.net (128.167.253.1) 25.785 ms 28.684 ms 27.843 ms
7 netsol.bbnplanet.net (192.221.77.130) 31.580 ms 33.831 ms 29.229 ms
8 * * a.root-servers.net (198.41.0.4) 44.905 ms

netsol.bbnplanet.net is Network Solutions, Inc., otherwise known as NSI.

InterNIC Registration (INTERNIC-BLK) INTERNIC-BLK1 198.0.0.0 - 198.255.255.0
Network Solutions, Inc. (NETBLK-INTERNIC) NETBLK-INTERNIC
198.41.0.0 - 198.41.2.0
Network Solutions, Inc. (NET-INTERNIC1) INTERNIC1 198.41.0.0 - 198.41.3.0

Nice try.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
Well, heck. Karl sent me the same thing personally since he must have
figured my slocal would nuke his messages on the main nanog list. I've
removed my slocal for the duration of various other emergencies, so I
got the pleasure of seeing this twice.

> >I take my root zone from the IANA.
> >Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

> Explain this trace please.
> ...
> 7 netsol.bbnplanet.net (192.221.77.130) 31.580 ms 33.831 ms 29.229 ms
> 8 * * a.root-servers.net (198.41.0.4) 44.905 ms
>
> netsol.bbnplanet.net is Network Solutions, Inc., otherwise known as NSI.

Yes, that's true. I think you interpreted that trace correctly. Exactly
why do you need my help?

> Nice try.

Um. I don't know a lot of smaller words I could use to explain this but I
will try.

If IANA tells me to take my root zone from Stargate 0, then I will. What
that trace is telling you is that a long while back, IANA asked the
InterNIC contractor (currently NSI) as well as the root name server
operators to publish its root zone. We all decided that since InterNIC
publishes the COM, EDU, MIL, NET, ORG, ARPA, and GOV zones to the other
root name servers, we might as well publish the "." zone the same way.

Authority to make changes to MIL, GOV, EDU, and "." was not delegated to
the InterNIC contractor. Last week the MIL folks let us all know that they
will be publishing the zone directly soon, for example. Authority to make
changes to COM, NET, ORG, and IN-ADDR.ARPA _was_ delegated to the InterNIC
contractor. However, IN-ADDR.ARPA is itself subdelegated to APNIC, RIPE,
and soon ARIN -- when the InterNIC contractor stops allocating IP address
blocks it will also cease to have authority to make changes in IN-ADDR.ARPA.

So you see, the top level domains published by the target of your traceroute
are not all owned by the organization who owns that target. When the owners
of these domains say "change where you pull it from", the root name server
operators do so during their next scheduled maintainance interval. The "."
zone is owned by IANA. If the IANA tells us to fetch it from Stargate 9, we
will do that -- it makes no difference to us where we fetch it from. We are
just server operators, we're just concerned about stuff like connectivity and
uptime and coherence.

Jim Fleming's so called "Root Server Council" is an insult to our intelligence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
Well, heck. Karl sent me the same thing personally since he must have
figured my slocal would nuke his messages on the main nanog list. I've
removed my slocal for the duration of various other emergencies, so I
got the pleasure of seeing this twice.

> >I take my root zone from the IANA.
> >Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

> Explain this trace please.
> ...
> 7 netsol.bbnplanet.net (192.221.77.130) 31.580 ms 33.831 ms 29.229 ms
> 8 * * a.root-servers.net (198.41.0.4) 44.905 ms
>
> netsol.bbnplanet.net is Network Solutions, Inc., otherwise known as NSI.

Yes, that's true. I think you interpreted that trace correctly. Exactly
why do you need my help?

> Nice try.

Um. I don't know a lot of smaller words I could use to explain this but I
will try.

If IANA tells me to take my root zone from Stargate 0, then I will. What
that trace is telling you is that a long while back, IANA asked the
InterNIC contractor (currently NSI) as well as the root name server
operators to publish its root zone. We all decided that since InterNIC
publishes the COM, EDU, MIL, NET, ORG, ARPA, and GOV zones to the other
root name servers, we might as well publish the "." zone the same way.

Authority to make changes to MIL, GOV, EDU, and "." was not delegated to
the InterNIC contractor. Last week the MIL folks let us all know that they
will be publishing the zone directly soon, for example. Authority to make
changes to COM, NET, ORG, and IN-ADDR.ARPA _was_ delegated to the InterNIC
contractor. However, IN-ADDR.ARPA is itself subdelegated to APNIC, RIPE,
and soon ARIN -- when the InterNIC contractor stops allocating IP address
blocks it will also cease to have authority to make changes in IN-ADDR.ARPA.

So you see, the top level domains published by the target of your traceroute
are not all owned by the organization who owns that target. When the owners
of these domains say "change where you pull it from", the root name server
operators do so during their next scheduled maintainance interval. The "."
zone is owned by IANA. If the IANA tells us to fetch it from Stargate 9, we
will do that -- it makes no difference to us where we fetch it from. We are
just server operators, we're just concerned about stuff like connectivity and
uptime and coherence.

Jim Fleming's so called "Root Server Council" is an insult to our intelligence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>> Hi. I'm a root name server operator.

[snip]

Paul operates f.root-servers.net.

>>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from
stargate 0.
>
>Really?
>
>Explain this trace please.

[snip]

>Nice try.

What's your point?

generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net.
traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms
2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms
3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms
4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms
5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms
6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms
7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>> Hi. I'm a root name server operator.

[snip]

Paul operates f.root-servers.net.

>>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from
stargate 0.
>
>Really?
>
>Explain this trace please.

[snip]

>Nice try.

What's your point?

generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net.
traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms
2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms
3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms
4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms
5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms
6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms
7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 10:50:27PM -0400, Dwight Ernest wrote:
> At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> >> Hi. I'm a root name server operator.
>
> [snip]
>
> Paul operates f.root-servers.net.
>
> >>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from
> stargate 0.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >Explain this trace please.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Nice try.
>
> What's your point?
>
> generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net.
> traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms
> 2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms
> 3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms
> 4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms
> 5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms
> 6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms
> 7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
>

That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
by NSI.

If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 10:50:27PM -0400, Dwight Ernest wrote:
> At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> >> Hi. I'm a root name server operator.
>
> [snip]
>
> Paul operates f.root-servers.net.
>
> >>I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from
> stargate 0.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >Explain this trace please.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Nice try.
>
> What's your point?
>
> generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net.
> traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms
> 2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms
> 3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms
> 4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms
> 5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms
> 6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms
> 7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
>

That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
by NSI.

If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
I wrote:

> @ Jim Fleming's so called "Root Server Council" is
> @ an insult to our intelligence.

Someone wrote me and asked:

> As a root name server operator, where do you stand
> on the following issues ?
>
> ===============
>
> 1. What are the confederations common guidelines
> on name syntax ?
> - One letter TLDs ?
> - Two letter TLDs ?
> - Dashes ?
> - Plurals ?

There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I have no
position on the above issues. Every zone has an owner, and every zone
has some number of operators. The owner of "." is the IANA, and you
should direct questions about TLDs (which have to be entered into ".")
to the owner of the "." zone, which is the IANA. I believe that the
IANA has a reasonable confidence level in the IAHC, and would be likely
to simply refer your questions to the Council of Registrars.

> 2. How will the confederations be "synced" ?
> (i.e. How will they exchange info on which
> TLDs they support ?)

There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I will publish
whatever "." zone the IANA directs me to publish. Synchronization of "."
servers is currently accomplished via AXFR (see RFC 1035).

> 3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD
> will all Confederations agree to use the same
> TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ?

See above. There is no confederation.

Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:

> That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
> by NSI.

This is true.

> If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.

This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they
could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly.
But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.

NSI has never, ever, ever, ever made a change to any of the domains it
publishes for other parties, except where asked to do so my the owner of
the domain in question. So for example, whenever the IANA recognizes a new
server for a TLD, it sends mail to the current InterNIC contractor asking
that the "." zone be changed to reflect this. And when NIC.MIL changes an
SLD delegation under _its_ domain, it sends the current InterNIC contractor
mail asking that this change be made. And when Vixie Enterprises wants to
change a second level delegation under COM (adding or deleting a name server
at VIX.COM for example), we send mail to the current InterNIC contractor
asking that this be done.

The current InterNIC contractor gets _so_many_ such requests that it even
has e-mailable templates which are robotically processed. The previous NIC
contractor (SRI) used to accept change requests in postal mail, facsimile,
or even (gasp!) by telephone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
I wrote:

> @ Jim Fleming's so called "Root Server Council" is
> @ an insult to our intelligence.

Someone wrote me and asked:

> As a root name server operator, where do you stand
> on the following issues ?
>
> ===============
>
> 1. What are the confederations common guidelines
> on name syntax ?
> - One letter TLDs ?
> - Two letter TLDs ?
> - Dashes ?
> - Plurals ?

There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I have no
position on the above issues. Every zone has an owner, and every zone
has some number of operators. The owner of "." is the IANA, and you
should direct questions about TLDs (which have to be entered into ".")
to the owner of the "." zone, which is the IANA. I believe that the
IANA has a reasonable confidence level in the IAHC, and would be likely
to simply refer your questions to the Council of Registrars.

> 2. How will the confederations be "synced" ?
> (i.e. How will they exchange info on which
> TLDs they support ?)

There is no confederation. As a root name server operator I will publish
whatever "." zone the IANA directs me to publish. Synchronization of "."
servers is currently accomplished via AXFR (see RFC 1035).

> 3. Once a Confederation agrees to recogize a TLD
> will all Confederations agree to use the same
> TLD Name Server referrral NS Resource Records ?

See above. There is no confederation.

Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:

> That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
> by NSI.

This is true.

> If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.

This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they
could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly.
But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.

NSI has never, ever, ever, ever made a change to any of the domains it
publishes for other parties, except where asked to do so my the owner of
the domain in question. So for example, whenever the IANA recognizes a new
server for a TLD, it sends mail to the current InterNIC contractor asking
that the "." zone be changed to reflect this. And when NIC.MIL changes an
SLD delegation under _its_ domain, it sends the current InterNIC contractor
mail asking that this change be made. And when Vixie Enterprises wants to
change a second level delegation under COM (adding or deleting a name server
at VIX.COM for example), we send mail to the current InterNIC contractor
asking that this be done.

The current InterNIC contractor gets _so_many_ such requests that it even
has e-mailable templates which are robotically processed. The previous NIC
contractor (SRI) used to accept change requests in postal mail, facsimile,
or even (gasp!) by telephone.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 08:58:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:

Balderdash. They are not misleading Paul. They are completely factual.
That you don't LIKE them is irrelavent.

> > That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
> > by NSI.
>
> This is true.

Yep.

> > If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
>
> This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they
> could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly.
> But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.

What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to
honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do
exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's
.WEB and not the IAHCs.

A defacto checkmate, as it were.

Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever
it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and
those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or
yours for that matter.

The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted
that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.

The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is
the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it
ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM)
that removes COM from its control?

Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do
with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 08:58:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public statements:

Balderdash. They are not misleading Paul. They are completely factual.
That you don't LIKE them is irrelavent.

> > That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled
> > by NSI.
>
> This is true.

Yep.

> > If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
>
> This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings they
> could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly.
> But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.

What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to
honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do
exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's
.WEB and not the IAHCs.

A defacto checkmate, as it were.

Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever
it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and
those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or
yours for that matter.

The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted
that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.

The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is
the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it
ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM)
that removes COM from its control?

Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do
with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:

> The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is
> the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it
> ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM)
> that removes COM from its control?
>
> Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do
> with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?

Where does NSI get the idea that it can abscond with the database it
developped under contract when the contractor is the U.S. government.

The fat lady ain't singin' yet, Karl. Why don't we all just sit back and
enjoy the show?


Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing.
But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms.
-- Randy Bush


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: NSI vs IANA [ In reply to ]
At 06:56 04 05 97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 08:58:39PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>>
>> Then, Karl made the following (intentionally?) misleading public
statements:
>
>Balderdash. They are not misleading Paul. They are completely factual.
>That you don't LIKE them is irrelavent.

Mislead \Mis*lead"\, v. t. [.imp. & p. p. Misled; p. pr. & vb. n.
Misleading.] [AS. misl?dan. See Mis-, and Lead to conduct.] To lead into a
wrong way or path; to lead astray; to guide into error; to cause to
mistake; to deceive.

Notice that nowhere in that definition does it mention the use of anything
but facts. Misleading, in fact, is generally interpreted to be using facts
to lead someone into thinking something that is not a fact.

Which is what you seem to spend most of your time doing, Karl.

>> > That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is
controlled
>> > by NSI.
>>
>> This is true.
>
>Yep.

No argument. It's pretty simple to look at an SOA and figure out where the
. zone comes from.

>> > If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
>>
>> This is true. What Karl neglected to mention is that if pigs had wings
they
>> could fly, and that furthermore, pigs don't have wings, so they don't fly.
>> But if they did have wings they would fly REALLY HIGH.

Karl's entire argument is based on the premise that these pigs _might_ have
wings and _might_ fly if they had them. There are laws against pigs
sprouting wings in this country, and if said pigs did indeed sprout wings
and attempt to fly, the US Government would shoot them out of the sky and
make pork chops.

Hmm.. I'm hungry now..

>What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to
>honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do
>exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's
>.WEB and not the IAHCs.

And the IANA (and/or NSF) would promptly ask the root server operators to
change where they retreived the root zone from. Once that was done, they
would sue NSI for every penny they had. You see, NSI has a contract with
the NSF that explicitly states that NSI gets its orders from the NSF and
IANA. If they do something without the NSF's permission, they are in
breach of contract (look it up if you don't know the term).

I won't even mention what would happen if the NSA or the MILnet decided
that US national security would be affected by NSI changing something that
is vital to the proper functioning of DNS inside and outside of the military.

>A defacto checkmate, as it were.

Yes, the US Government would certainly checkmate NSI. Good point.

>Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever
>it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and
>those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or
>yours for that matter.

NSI can offer whatever zone it wants. The root servers, on the other hand,
will always offer what the IANA decides.

>The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted
>that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.

NSI may or may not own the servers. That is totally unrelated to whether
or not they own the data contained in those servers, or if it even matters
who owns it.

If NSI changed the root zone and demanded Mr. Vixie take the changes since
they owned the hardware, I'm confident Mr. Vixie would give them the
machine back and find another machine to run his root server on.

>The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is
>the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it
>ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM)
>that removes COM from its control?

Again, if NSI doesn't fulfill its part of the contract, there will be a lot
of financial, legal, and other problems for NSI. The rest of the world,
however, will see things the IANA's way.

>Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do
>with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?

It's called a court. If you are unaware of what breach of contract is,
perhaps you need to take a few law classes.


Stephen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
> What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to
> honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do
> exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's
> .WEB and not the IAHCs.

I guess that would be up to the IANA. If NSI ignored the IANA's wishes
(recall that the IAHC is the result of an IANA plan) and started editing
IANA's "." zone without authorization, I would expect the IANA to send mail
to the root name server operators saying "please fetch the root zone from
somewhere else". This is pretty unlikely -- the current InterNIC
contractor knows full well that ".", MIL, GOV, and EDU are owned by others.
(I believe that this was the sense of their answer to PGPMedia, too.)

> A defacto checkmate, as it were.

This would be more like NSI deciding to take its own king off the board.
Since they stand to make truckloads of money as an IAHC shared registry,
this seems like it would be a really stupid thing for them to do, Tom
Newell's recent idiotic comments notwithstanding.

> Or, if NSI, tomorrow, defined a process and actually executed it, whatever
> it might be, that new TLDs would go into the so-called "IANA" roots, and
> those might include a very different view of the world than the IAHCs, or
> yours for that matter.

Once again this would be up to the IANA.

> The truth is, they're NSI's roots. In fact, the truth is, you've admitted
> that NSI has actually paid for at least part of the server which you host.

The current InterNIC contractor doesn't control the content of my server, but
they do tend to act as a coordinating resource. I guarantee that if the owner
of the MIL, GOV, EDU, or "." zones sent mail to the root name server operators
asking that these zones be pulled from a new source, it would be done by the
next maintainance interval. The IANA is a special case -- while they have
delegated COM, ORG and NET to the current InterNIC contractor, IANA has the
right to redelegate them to someone else. So the fact is, *all* TLD's come
from the IANA. It's just that some of them come from the IETF (RFC1591 et al)
and some come from the UN (ISO 3166) and some will apparently be coming from
the IAHC (WEB, REC, et al).

The current InterNIC contractor did send me some hardware, it's true. But,
since you keep harping on it, I'm going to send it all back and use my own.
I consider buying a 1GB alpha to be inconvenient but it won't kill me.

> The further truth is, NSI has asserted that it *OWNS* COM. And since it is
> the one in charge of the root file, what odds would you care to lay on it
> ever making an edit (so long as it continues to assert that it owns COM)
> that removes COM from its control?

Odds: 1 in 1. There is no contest here.

> Finally, where do you get the idea that you can tell someone else what to do
> with their money, when that "someone else" is a private corporation?

My directions to the industry aren't about money. It turns out that everyone
who has followed my directions over the years has made more money because of
that -- but it's measured in dollars per decade rather than dollars per month.
I'm not particularly concerned about my directions' reputation for quality.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: NSI vs IANA [ In reply to ]
I want to clear up one point.

> If NSI changed the root zone and demanded Mr. Vixie take the changes since
> they owned the hardware, I'm confident Mr. Vixie would give them the
> machine back and find another machine to run his root server on.

The agreement I signed with NSI upon delivery of their server iron to PAIX
was that I would return it on demand, maintain it in good working order, and
maintain fire insurance (which is some kind of leasing requirement). That's
all.

Now as to the truth of the above assertion. If NSI decided to become a DNS
pirate (that is, if they ever ignore a request from the IANA), and then they
asked me to participate in this piracy, and they tried to use the fact that
they are making lease payments on the F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET iron as some kind
of leverage, I would treat them as I treat all DNS pirates: with contempt;
they would sink beneath my notice; I would think of them as "like Karl and
Jim and Eugene"; I would quietly wait for instructions from the IANA as to
what to do next; I would send NSI's hardware back to them upon request, per
my agreement with them.

As a lot of the people who have paid my way over the years can tell you,
money is my *enabler* but never my *determiner*. I will do the right thing,
and I've been lucky enough to have a number of people and companies use their
money so that that "right thing" can be a broader swath than I could do alone.

It appears that when someone pays Karl, he does whatever they want him to
do, irrespective of Karl's own ethics (if any.) Karl has projected this
attitude on me and on others here for many years, and has never been able
to understand that most other people are not like him in this way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sun, May 04, 1997 at 10:00:48AM -0400, Jamie Rishaw wrote:
> Cc's trimmed.
>
> What's so difficult to understand about what Paul said?
>
> If IANA calls Paul and says "Hey paul, starting tonight, get your
> zone files from here instead of from NSI", guess what? The next morning,
> the root servers show IANA's zones and the InterNIC is out of the loop.
>
> They're *in* the loop now because they are the sole arbiter of the zones,
> it only makes things easier.
>
> jamie g.k. rishaw <jamie@@iagnet.net> Internet Access Group
> Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net]
> DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455

You don't understand how DNS works.

As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there
point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace.

One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems.

NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a
long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be
believed.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:

> > What Paul has neglected to mention is that if NSI, tomorrow, decided to
> > honor Image Online Design's .WEB (say, because perhaps they sued NSI to do
> > exactly that, and NSI folded rather than fight) you'd publish Mr. Ambler's
> > .WEB and not the IAHCs.
>
> I guess that would be up to the IANA. If NSI ignored the IANA's wishes
> (recall that the IAHC is the result of an IANA plan) and started editing
> IANA's "." zone without authorization, I would expect the IANA to send mail
> to the root name server operators saying "please fetch the root zone from
> somewhere else". This is pretty unlikely -- the current InterNIC
> contractor knows full well that ".", MIL, GOV, and EDU are owned by others.
> (I believe that this was the sense of their answer to PGPMedia, too.)

You know, all this talk about the Internet and DNS zones and who owns them
has lead me to believe that really, the US government should stay the hell
out of it.

The US government originally "owned" what used to be ARPAnet... the days
of ARPAnet are long gone and I don't see what right the US government has
to meddle in any of this. Yes, the NSF funded at one point a lot of
things, but that doesn't mean that they somehow have the right to take it
back. Heck, the NSF funds a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they own
it. Just because the government funds say the FDIC, doesn't mean they own
all banks, the same is true with InterNIC.

How many people out there really want a government regulated Internet?
First it's root zones, then it's dark fiber, pretty soon its the bits and
bytes flowing through routers and before you know it, Uncle Sam says you
can't swear while on IRC because a minor may be listening.

What I'm trying to convey here is that the US government doesn't own the
Internet any longer, nor does any other goverment on this planet. The
people run it. Now, I agree that if InterNIC was doing a bad job, they
should be replaced... but they aren't. Sure, they have their rough weeks,
and sometimes it is hard to get ahold of them.

Now, 15 years ago, the IANA might have been in the position to delgate
such power, but today... the Internet is radically different, and the
contract between InterNIC & IANA should be void because the IANA doesn't
*OWN* DNS any more. The US government doesn't *OWN* the Internet therefore
control over the root zone shouldn't be relinquished to them.

So what should happen? We all agree that COM zone is so full that its hard
to manage all the disputes over domains and what not. Personally, I
believe that InterNIC should still do all registrations and handle all
aspects of updating and maintaining databases, but I believe that InterNIC
should be regulated by some sort of committee to oversee changes in
policy. This committee would be elected or appointed, whatever is in the
best interest of the people.

I guess my idea differs from most as it doesn't involve much change. The
committee would be in power to change what TLDs there were, but not to
actually implement them. InterNIC would be the people who implement these
new policies, and take care of maintaining them.

This sounds like the perfect plan to me. Everyone is happy. InterNIC still
has it's business in tact, and the people have their method of deciding
what new TLD's, etc should go into effect.

Ah well, just an idea.

Jordan

--
Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/
Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RE: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
Karl Denninger [SMTP:karl@Mcs.Net] wrote around Sunday, May 04, 1997 12:57 PM
(in some timezone, my mail client is useless):
>
>As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there
>point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace.
>
>One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems.
>
>NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a
>long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be
>believed.

That's one of the nice things about widespread backing of the IAHC plan
by the big players. It wouldn't be hard for them to blackhole the cached
rogue servers and thus cut them out of the loop. No doubt Karl will
invoke lawyers at this, but while people are running around seeking
injunctions to support their own lawlessness, the net keeps running.
I would think that network operators could argue this is no different from
filtering out rogue routes coming in from a subverted BGP peer.

Geoffrey

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
> How many people out there really want a government regulated Internet?

As opposed to a Karl or Jim regulated internet? I guess I'll take the
government based on track record alone.

randy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
> You know, all this talk about the Internet and DNS zones and who owns them
> has lead me to believe that really, the US government should stay the hell
> out of it.

I agree. The FCC has reasonable cause to take care of the US domain, but
just as international radio frequencies are allocated internationally, so
must IP address space and DNS toplevel domains.

> Now, 15 years ago, the IANA might have been in the position to delgate
> such power, but today... the Internet is radically different, and the
> contract between InterNIC & IANA should be void because the IANA doesn't
> *OWN* DNS any more. The US government doesn't *OWN* the Internet therefore
> control over the root zone shouldn't be relinquished to them.

You're confusing IANA with a government entity. IANA is where this stuff
comes from because, for 25 years, IANA has been where this stuff comes from.
The world has come to trust IANA's judgement in who IANA gets its new TLD's
from (which is currently the U.N. and the IETF, and will soon include IAHC's
Council of Registrars).

For some reason the AlterNIC/eDNS people don't look to IANA like international
treaty organizations with strong committments to reflecting public consensus.
Your guess as to this reason is probably as good as mine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
> > What's so difficult to understand about what Paul said?
>
> You don't understand how DNS works.

I think he does.

> As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there
> point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace.

Heck, I guess that would be true of "F" as well. Shall I break the name
space? No? Why not? Is it because coherence has great value? OK, so how
shall we determine the synchronization signal for this coherence -- that is,
who can vary and who is required to follow? The answer is that the owner of
a zone can vary, and the publishers of a zone have to follow.

> One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems.

Which is why I expect that the current InterNIC contractor (NSI) will do
whatever the owners of its published but unowned zones (".", MIL, EDU, GOV)
tell them to do.

> NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a
> long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be
> believed.

If NSI tried to become a DNS pirate, I expect that IANA would publish a new
"named.cache" file without NSI in it, and that the world would switch in a
week or less. Nobody likes DNS pirates -- or hadn't you noticed, Karl?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze [ In reply to ]
> Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
> Subject: Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
> [...]
> Where does NSI get the idea that it can abscond with the database it
> developped under contract when the contractor is the U.S. government.
> [...]

Perhaps, from the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs).

Perhaps, from West Publishing. (It may be instructive to examine some of
the West Publishing issues.)

NSI might assert copyright of the .com database, (the database with, for
example, the contact information, payment information, etc.). I believe
that Federal contractors own the copyright for work done under
government contract.

The U.S. government probably has fairly broad rights to the .com database
developed by NSI under government contract. However, the U.S. government
may not have the right to give it to someone else.

(I am not a lawyer...)

-tjs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 2  View All