Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Eric Brunner-Williams <[e-mail]>]

On 11/8/14 4:36 PM, manning bill wrote:
> [...]
> Removal of or rehoming some of the trappings of power (who controls IANA.*) seems like a niche question at best.
>
> For me, the more fundamental problem is:  a) how to tell when an operator of one of these functions has lost it,  and  b) how to neutralize the impact
> of a rouge operator.

I agree that one particular name-to-resources mapping is not a 
fundamental question. There are important names within the namespace, 
but transition is not intractable, in my opinion.

I suggest that the illumination of a ns constellation by CNNIC in 
2001/2002 and the publication of a non-identical zone file in (IIRC) 
2004 is evidence of "when an operator of one of those functions has lost 
it", though I expect there will be disagreement as to which operator 
"lost it". I suggest that the subsequent continuous publication of a 
non-identical zone file is also evidence of "how to neutralize the 
impact of a rogue operator", though again I expect there will be 
disagreement as to which operator's action, or lack of action, will be 
seen as rogue.

See also the effect of precluding, by intent or lack of oversight, use 
of the GOST suite to sign zones.

My point being that we can treat failure as a hypothetical future, or we 
can take a look at some available technical consequences of recent 
policies, and extrapolate for equivalent or greater failures.

Eric