[Ianaplan] response to your questions
Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> Fri, 17 July 2015 08:44 UTC
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4C11B31B3; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.965
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzUVpTYFihb6; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193801B31B2; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 251.47.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.47.251]:19413 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1ZG1FT-0008Mm-Sv; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:44:04 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:43:58 +0200
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "Ianaplan@Ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
From: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_550851511==.ALT"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Message-Id: <20150717084406.193801B31B2@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/7PJpkcdt2knjWVottKUtRRcwCRA>
Cc: gene@wilibre.net, "iucg@ietf.org" <iucg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ianaplan] response to your questions
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:44:10 -0000
Hi! Andrew, I apologize for the late response. I wanted it to be comprehensive and had a few things to address before. >At 00:13 10/07/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >Hi, >Just two things. > >On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:31:50PM +0200, Jefsey wrote: > > The IESG/IAB appeal process is now finished. It concludes that the RFC 2026 > > process has been rigorously respected. >[] > > - along RFC 2026, in trying to ask for them from the ISOC Chair. > >I cannot tell whether in the first pair of sentences, the "It >concludes" means that the appeals conclude that, but that you don't >agree; Correct. See below. >or whether you mean that the appeal process having gone the way >it did, that conclusion shows that the RFC 2026 process has been >rigorously respected. The IAB thinks the RFC 2026 process has been respected. I think it did not work: otherwise, the IAB conclusions would have addressed my questions, either in responding to them or in denying their pertinence. The reason why is that you and me do not consider the RFC 2026 process at the same level. 1. IAB looks at the respect of the letter of the RFC 2026 process, I think the RFC 2026 itself is "inadequate or insufficent to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process." 2. I have not made up my mind as to why. Is this due to the particular case at hand or is it for new reasons resulting from the new situation in which the IETF now is? >If the latter, then you can't ask anything from >ISOC, because appeal to the ISOC BoT (not the Chair, note) of an IAB >decision is only permitted on procedural grounds. This is the >distinction between sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2, and section 6.5.3, of >RFC 2026. I imagine you know that, but I just wanted to remind >everyone. It seems that we may not have the same reading of the RFC 2026 sentence that I refer to. Anyway, the point is important because this is a case of conflict between the RFC 6852 principles, the RFC 3935 documented IETF mission and the position irt. NTIA and ICANN accepted by the Draft and now consistently documented by the IETF Chair and by IAB. We are in the case why I objected RFC 6852, the case it has not addressed. How to resolve/clarify an intercommunity technical/political inconsistency. Roughly, there is no longer any moral/political/"formal" (the word is from RFC 6852) authority claim over the use of the catenet by the different technologies designed by the different global communities (that want to use it along the requirements of their markets). We are in the multistakeholder configuration: the evaluation of my RFC 6852 global community differs from your RFC 6852 global community evaluation. This seems to be for three reasons: 1. the IAB has relinquished its authority over ICANN (through the IANA) giving up a historical claim of leadership over the TCP/IP architecture. 2. In addition, the IETF/IAB has limited itself this authority over its technology in accepting to become the ICANN RFC 6852 Global Community architectural/technological pole of expertise other RFC 6852 Global Communities can compete/coopete/concert with. 3. However, the IETF has helped me identify the wide and widely informal LIBRE RFC 6852 global community through the <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>iucg@ietf.org mailing list. I have not invested enough in the formalization of such a "WI-LIBRE" global community so it might adequately contribute. This is something I should do both politically (hence an appeal at the peer level with ISOC) and technically (hence the analysis, R&D and testing of a catenet partner architecture - that might adequately support and contribute to the different networking architectures a member of the digital ecosystem may have to master). Since (again this was the reason for my appeal last year) RFC 6852 has not foreseen any technical conflict resolution/clarification mechanism between those adhering to its principles, we are left in a limbo situation. My appeal to ISOC should help to understand if (and what) the Internet Community and the State Department have foreseen should the case arise. If ISOC were to decline to answer my appeal, it would only mean that the US has chosen not to politically interfere anymore in my business. This is big news to me after they fired me 30 years ago! > > includes the "FL" (Free/LIBRE) DNS CLASS testing. This will be an RFC 6852 > > global community experimentation that will adhere to the "Experimentation" > > section of the ICANN Internet Coordination Policy statement > number 3 (quoted > > below). This is the way I proceeded in 2003/2004 when I conducted the > > "dot-root" community test-bed. > > > > I am certainly willing to coordinate and/or discuss this testing with you > > and ICANN, as I expect it to provide, potentially everyone, with experience > > in cooperation/competition operational and normative relations between RFC > > 6852 Global Communities (such as ICANN and the LIBRE Global Community). > >I note that ><http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-2>http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-2 >includes a range of CLASS values, from 65280-65534, that are reserved >for private use. This was defined in RFC 6895. If you perform an >experiment, I urge you to use those class values, which will relieve >you of the requirement to do any co-ordinating with anyone outside >your experiment group. At this still no-home-root proliferation time, this is certainly my only intent. But this situation will not be sustainable, as a positive outcome will most probably result in three kinds of root files approaches: - the "Global Community" (like the "IN" IcanN) ones. This is something our "WI-LIBRE" (let us call it this for clarity purposes) community will certainly target. - the "VGN" (virtual glocal network) ones, maintained by a VGNIC sorry, these are WILIBRE basic concepts. - the personal ones: informed users (IUsers) will maintain their own glocal root by themselves with the help of specialized tools. >I will also observe that I think DNSOP would >very much appreciate data from your experiment regarding how DNAME and >CNAME work under it, ideally in a parallel namespace (as is claimed to >be expected by STD 13, anyway). Certainly. The intent is to document it - English speaking manpower permitting - on <http://dnsa.org/>http://dnsa.org. Unfortunately, the way the IETF did not full-fledge document and maintain its technology (at least for the time being, in only requesting comments on a step by step basis) prevents us from participating in the DNSOP debate, by the lack of a common understanding, however few we are. Our priority is, therefore, to build a comprehensive/consistent documentation (from existing RFCs) we can use. This certainly is documentation that is necessary for the community effort that we will get checked by the DNSOP community, should they want to help. >Best regards, > >A > >PS: not only am I speaking for myself, but I also recused myself from >the appeal consideration because of my previous role in handling the >document. I fully understand and appreciate that. This is unfortunately a possibility I do not share myself for the time being. I think the best is to unravel the complication we reached since things blocked with me over RFC 923. This seems to be possible, in proceeding from the DNS core since the State-Department has also identified it as the apex of the debate (it is also where TMs, languages and people direct use are bound to the technology). It could be technically hacked in a few days. However, what we want to really test is wider: - the ability of average informed users to understand it. - hence the documentation we should produce. - probably the various software tools involved on the user and operator sides. This is much more demanding. Please also note that (in addition to the IUsers) we are to expect at least two kinds of operators: 1. the NIC that produces a root and coordinates with TLD managers. 2. the Ledger operator that will support one or several root registries and, therefore, several public CLASSes. You will, therefore, understand that I will take my time. Moreover, I am currently focusing on the multi/mecalinguistic issues of all this, the local and global catenet oriented citizen use and management as well as the discussion of that "WI-LIBRE" global community and corresponding license (such a community over networking issues must also be free from the Free Software limitations: everyone must be openly interconnectable, supported and protected). My capacity and target is only to spark catalysis. This seems to be feasible because I eventually understood that the whole industry, NSA, I*Core strategy over the last 30 years was based upon the BUG bug (trying to Be Unilaterally Global) transformed into a temporary feature by the NTIA oversight/tutorship replacing the ITU multilateral proposition, itself in parallel with the initial "advanced communication technology" (ACT) (everyone being to be supported) architecture I had access to and deployed. In its own way, the NTIA has also identified this situation. My priority is, therefore, not anymore to try to prevent the IETF from conflicting with future common interests. My simpler target is only to technically, intellectually, legally etc. correct the BUG. If it is correct, at its own pace, my fix will proceed on its own. The only real problem left is that we are in a real-time political, economic context. So, I must take care to not poorly interfer with the evangelization, consolidation, and experimentations I need. This is why I think the ICANN/ICP-3 Experimentation Section makes good guidelines. I would certainly be interested in some improvements: I started working some years ago on an extensions based on a Brian Carpenter's I_D on technical precautions. jfc