At 23:20 28/11/03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
> they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
> the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah ... security officers and generals--if they are competent--don't put
their HQ computers on an open network in the first place. That only
happens in the movies.
hmm... competence in this area is to accept that what happens in movies is
just a small part of the real life.
This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to prospective
numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the suggested
propositions rises any concern ?
In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file if
they want to be identical? What would happen if one was hacked? (I note
that this is the current situation of the Internet where two deliveries of
the same file are proposed).
The same, no one comments on secondary source for the root, meaning that
the ICANN unicity is not an intrisic need, provided the different root
files collectors strive to collect the real data from the TLD Managers (who
are authoritative, while the root file is not). Not a problem to anyone?
No one either comment on private TLDs, or the creation of a virtual TLD
used through Host.txt only. No one objects to the generalization of users
resolvers, the possible resulting dissemination of the root file to all the
users and their resulting ability to fight an ICANN redelegation what is a
major issue at WSIS.
If there are no major objection I will suggest that a "Nations Security
propositions" dratf be written as Best Practices, based upon the introduced
suggestions and the one the participants may want to add. This will be
introduced at the comming WSIS december 5/6th final preparatory meeting and
will help addressing concerns expressed by several countries.
jfc