At 21:24 08/12/03, Bill Manning wrote:
% Either we need the root system and it must match the basic surety
rules for
% a critical infrastructure, or we just want to keep the fossil concept the
% way it was designed 20 years ago.
Why do you think this is an either/or proposition?
This thread shown many reasons why.
You may disagree. Decision is not ours. But we may presume it.
% Then UN/ITU or private industry or a new
% NGO or a new Gov technically and security certified type of operator is to
% find, propose, test, and deploy another solution. I suggest them to read
% carefully the very well crafted ICP-3 document. It correctly considers the
% end of the single authoritative root file concept. And documents the way to
% test new venues.
Please provide a pointer to this ICP-3 document.
UN/ITU, Private Industry, and NGO/Governments are -ALREADY-
engaged in this process.
Sorry, so basic for those engaged in it. http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm
% I am sorry to come again and again on this. I will do it until a special WG
% is created or IETF transfers the concern to ITU.
"special WG" - chartered in/under what jurisdiction?
I am currently asking it to IETF.
% The world wants a new network
% approach, more equal, more secure, more stable, safer, more innovation
% oriented, respectfull of national digital independance and sovereignty and
% IS actually switching.
%
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/technology/08divide.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position
Then the "world" is getting what it wants. Is there a requirement
to force the dismantling of an existing system first? If so, where
is that requirement documented? Nothing is preventing -anyone-
or -any group- from formulating, and promulgating their own
naming constructs.
The world naming construct was defined 26 years ago. The constraints for
the internet application was written seven years later on in RFC 920 wich
reflected the international consensus. ICANN claims legitimacy from RFC 920
and 922. RFC 1591 is the renewal 10 years later on. What is mainly opposed
to ICANN is a policy to contradict that consensus. No one remembers the
conditions of the consensus but is quite pleased by the terms.
% Today, every nations need and must be permited a strategy towards a
% national and global secure cyberspace
Nothing is preventing nations from proceeding with their stratagies
towards a national and globally secure cyberspace.
Ever considered the threat of the current root system?
% IAB and IETF are to design and help the implementation.
Under what charter and funding model?
If this is not what they want, they will not object someone else does it.
I do not understant your remark.
% Or more simply, may be kill the real time root servers concept and review
% the DNS as a non God centralized system? If there was nothing to protect
% because there would be nothing, we would risk far less from there.
Been there, done that. The TBDS project (circa 1999/2000)
eliminated the requirement for an always on, fully connected
mesh, with access to any external authoritative servers, be
they root, tld, or anywhere else in the heirarchy.
The upshot was that the DNS is -fully- placed in the hands of
the endusers. We did not replace one centralized service with
another or even a collection of centralized services, e.g.
no ICANN, no IANA, no nation state, no private industry, no
NGO or multinational treaty organization. It was -COMPLETELY-
up to the endusers.
Where is it documented? Has it been tested? With a significant number of
users? How is it accessed by existing applications?
% Then?
We wait for the adoption by vendors/users of the new world
order while we maintain, augment, and evolve the existing,
working system so as to facilitate a near-zero impact on the
people, organizations, and nations that have come to depend
on the system we have built.
Good. Are you talkingof the root system or of the TBDS?
Root servers system is not intrinsic to the DNS.
thank you.
jfc