[DNSOP] FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members"
Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> Mon, 09 June 2008 17:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23D93A6B54; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4793A691F; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0tcxIHWNerT; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirrus.av8.net (cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877EE3A6C7B; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sr22.av8.net (sr22.av8.net [198.3.136.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by cirrus.av8.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m59Hxd1E002932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:59:41 -0400
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:59:38 -0400
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
X-X-Sender: dean@sr22.av8.net
To: iesg@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0806091350540.1795-100000@sr22.av8.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [DNSOP] FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
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.Lewis@neustar.biz> To: yngve@opera.com Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.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@frobbit.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 defFrom dnsop-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 9 10:59:33 2008 Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23D93A6B54; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4793A691F; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0tcxIHWNerT; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirrus.av8.net (cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877EE3A6C7B; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sr22.av8.net (sr22.av8.net [198.3.136.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by cirrus.av8.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m59Hxd1E002932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipheríH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits8 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:59:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:59:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> X-X-Sender: dean@sr22.av8.net To: iesg@ietf.org, <iab@iab.org> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0806091350540.1795-100000@sr22.av8.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: [DNSOP] FYI, more comments on IETF "not having members" X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop> List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org 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.Lewis@neustar.biz> To: yngve@opera.com Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.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@frobbit.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 dine 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop efine 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
- [DNSOP] FYI, more comments on IETF "not having me… Dean Anderson