Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

I agree almost completely (and that "almost" is only there to cover me
in case I think of an objection later) with what Bill Manning said.
But I'm particularly concerned about this:

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:21AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:

> A self-correcting problem.  The folks that are affected are the ones  
> using the non-updated server and no one else. 

The problem is that those folks are _exactly_ the people who don't
understand any of this Internet plumbing anyway.  All they know is,
"This thing isn't working," or, "The Internet is down," or something
similar.  The idea that they're going to put pressure on someone to
fix it entails a great deal of optimism about what naive users might
know about how the Internet functions and who can solve their
problems.  

I think I should have put this another way than "cure worse than the
disease."  I agree that having lots of dispersed copies of the root
with at best very loosely coupled management of those copies would
solve the disease we have.  But this seems to me like solving the
problem of yellow fever by comFrom [e-mail]  Fri Apr  4 10:08:16 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2998D28C1FC;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 10:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4CC3A697F
	for <[e-mail]>; Fri,  4 Apr 2008 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.735
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553,
	HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 yNmBQBU-yQEk for <[e-mail]>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net
	[207.173.203.159])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29843A6CA1
	for <[e-mail]>; Fri,  4 Apr 2008 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from commandprompt.com (227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net
	[209.222.54.227]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m34H8qab011252
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:08:55 -0700
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:08:16 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail].>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0
	(lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]);
	Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

I agree almost completely (and that "almost" is only there to cover me
in case I think of an objection later) with what Bill Manning said.
But I'm particularly concerned about this:

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:21AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:

> A self-correcting problem.  The folks that are affected are the ones  
> using the non-updated server and no one else. 

The problem is that those folks are _exactly_ the people who don't
understand any of this Internet plumbing anyway.  All they know is,
"This thing isn't working," or, "The Internet is down," or something
similar.  The idea that they're going to put pressure on someone to
fix it entails a great deal of optimism about what naive users might
know about how the Internet functions and who can solve their
problems.  

I think I should have put this another way than "cure worse than the
disease."  I agree that having lots of dispersed copies of the root
with at best very loosely coupled management of those copies would
solve the disease we have.  But this seems to me like solving the
problem of yellow fever by complpletely draining all the swamplands of
the world: it may be great for the humans, but it's pretty lousy if
you're one of the animals that lives in the swamp.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
[phone] x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


etely draining all the swamplands of
the world: it may be great for the humans, but it's pretty lousy if
you're one of the animals that lives in the swamp.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
[phone] x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop