ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members" (fwd)

2008-06-10 08:13:20
Folks - I don't want to extend Deans rant here because that's between him 
and you.

...But as to the argument that the IETF has no member's. Sorry, the IETF *** 
does *** in fact have member's - They are those parties bound under 
contractual arrangement's with the IETF to participate formally in its 
processes and who try and avail themselves of the IETF's processes. The 
joint tenancy in the derivative rights helps to cement that too.

In this case under the Open and Fair doctrine the IETF espouses, the 
definition of member could be as simple as  "a party trying to avail 
themselves of the IETF's processes".

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey(_at_)certichron(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members" (fwd)


FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv(_at_)mozilla(_dot_)org>, dnsop(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, 
ietf-http-wg(_at_)w3(_dot_)org,
    yngve(_at_)opera(_dot_)com
Subject: FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members"


The frivolous, dishonest, and false statements in the January 15, 2008
IESG Appeal Response found at
[http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-response-dean-anderson-01-15-2008.txt]
must be corrected.  Persons are begining to incorrectly claim that the
IETF has no members, and no ability to make official statements. In fact
numerous Official IETF documents refer to IETF members, and the IETF is
part of the Internet Society, Inc, a U.S. non-profit corporation.  The
ISOC is engaging in improper trade practices by misrepresenting its both
its incorporation status and its status as a part of a non-profit
membership corporation.

Dean Anderson
CEO
AV8 Internet, Inc


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:17:36 -0400
From: Edward Lewis <Ed(_dot_)Lewis(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz>
To: yngve(_at_)opera(_dot_)com
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv(_at_)mozilla(_dot_)org>, dnsop(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, 
ietf-http-wg(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

At 16:00 +0200 6/9/08, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:32:11 +0200, Patrik Fältström 
<patrik(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se>
wrote:

 The problem with any such mechanisms is that the barrier of entry for
 new players (that does not match the currently used list -- including
 non-upgraded software) is increased. More than what people think.

That is why my subtld-structure draft is suggesting that TLD profiles be
downloaded at regular intervals (and at need) from a repository, in order
to make it possible to add new TLDs or new registry-like domains under a
TLD, and to prevent problems with old software. My drafts also suggest a
rule-of-thumb fallback in case a TLD is unknown.

This thread is going to go around in circles for
quite a while.  There's a history of the IETF
wanting to define something without fixed
boundaries.  DNS names is one, IPv6 addresses is
another.  But when it comes to operations, having
fixed boundaries makes mass production much
easier.

E.g., in IPv6, IETFer's (as we know, the IETF
doesn't have any official statement source and no
members, so I refer to those in the debate that
brandish IETF credentials) would say that the
days of classful addressing are behind us, so
IPv6 addresses ought to be treated as nothing but
a string of 128 bits.  But RIR policy writers
wanted to know whether to recommend /48's, /54's,
/32's, etc. for certain types of uses.  ("Uses"
not users.)

Shifting back to DNS, there's not going to be a
scientific differentiation between one zone and
another.  During the DNSSEC development days we
wanted to declare some zones as "widely
delegated" (such as .com) from other zones - to
alleviate the issues we see with NSEC, NSEC3,
etc. that are apparent still now.  There's
nothing in DNS to differentiate, at a protocol
level, one zone from another, but at the
operational end of the stick, there are many
differentiators (like whether the administration
interface is on paper or via EPP).

I doubt that you'll find any repository that can
be used to register "registry-like" zones.  The
DNS lacks anything like a RADB, RPSL, etc.,
mechanism employed by the routing infrastructure.
Partly because, unlike IP addresses, there is no
organizational link through all parts of the
Domain administrations.  ICANN does not have it's
"thumbs" on all the TLDs - many ccTLDs do not
operate under any agreement with ICANN.

I admire and respect the effort of web browser
implementers to try to improve their code to make
it harder to abuse.  Even if the desired tactic
is on target, it may still fail because the
information is just not available.  Worse is
broken security which will just frustrate the
users and make the situation even more fertile
for abuse (through uncertainty and confusion).

The domain name industry is more complex than one
would think.  It's not technical, it's a market
place with operators, wholesalers, resellers,
etc.  I think the answers to building a domain's
reputation lie more in what happens at an ICANN
meeting than an IETF meeting.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis 
+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop




_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members" (fwd), TSG <=