Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 30 May 2014 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7C21A6F6C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 pMabUIhvKP77 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E778D1A018F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id g10so1167923pdj.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=3W+5KdJgVIrsgE52FBFT74l38ou7r/PUz7DeT4Ws/fM=; b=Dqh6f/J/LQNNp5Em5HN5OxNH4RXF4kBoxjDGe/528Dh3XU0/qynviAX3wYbj4sSXJe +LrEF5/JbbTJYL0CycvjZFyx2DRgxzvVtT/YdnDEobdabM4obF0ReFm8Heu35A/kFeeO kbUq4/EMwNQL0IvqFhwBb4Q/7a/4MlKx6rgWu6/coHqw/cILEEXfEcAVOg7Yo3tD4joc cDP1dUyXZboYKcXyDtGFmcoXVlW9ZmgK459Ryz0Qev74mZEfULZEjYwgGLhF646C9ZY8 6z0an5bG0q4VFtVirnMAcmczORFJPlG+CzHisUvA9xnRVYisDXaInWyWysOpttdWnFxW 42ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlrU6I4Afr8XJnBf3vnYves1yHMxOqyqLrAw//MOMkhJbLcB9pfw4SRH0pCwJDa7CrbMMUC
X-Received: by 10.68.240.5 with SMTP id vw5mr19830160pbc.113.1401470284681; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-24-6-168-86.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.168.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sy2sm7340863pbc.28.2014.05.30.10.18.03 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 30 May 2014 10:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0E0BF478-D93F-4584-AEF3-D7F28C79F59F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5388AA1B.1050803@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:17:55 -0700
Message-Id: <46AF19CF-C4F9-4D8A-94CC-4B3BF5FD67BD@virtualized.org>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140521194638.06eaf508@resistor.net> <1111FB79-012A-414B-B8CD-0BBDAE8BD6A8@hopcount.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20140522095317.0c5fd648@elandnews.com> <5C02BCCA-79D7-40A5-BFB0-26284A667E78@vpnc.org> <DC9ED318-2352-4AF0-8A43-29D237C32B64@vigilsec.com> <924045CD-DC34-423B-8702-CD99CF687D46@vpnc.org> <31344.1401304682@sandelman.ca> <BF0C8B7B-27D0-40B8-8FBD-5D255951222F@ericsson.com> <538795FB.6060205@gmail.com> <5387A307.4000903@gmail.com> <70E8B2EF-FD92-4DEF-BA98-0604041B0C30@isi.edu> <5388AA1B.1050803@gmail.com>
To: carlos@lacnic.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IaSmA0l2lTo6ru2kKHuVOOtafhQ
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:18:12 -0000

Carlos,

On May 30, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you
> agree to provide a service that the whole internet depends on, then you
> need to comply with a few requirements.

That might be nice, but that isn't how the root server system works.

The root server operators provide a voluntary service for their own reasons using their own resources. History has shown that no one other than the folks that pay to root server operators' bills gets to impose requirements on how that service is provided. The IETF, IESG, IAB, ICANN, and/or random people off the street can make suggestions on how that service can be provided, but there should be no illusions about whether those suggestions are going to be followed.

> If you can't / won't, well... you can opt out.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there still is no succession plan if a root server actually were to opt out, there simply is no incentive for a root server operator to opt out. As such, suggesting that as an option is ... of debatable value.

> But past failures in enforcement
> should not deter the IETF of setting the requirements the IETF deems
> necessary for the correct operation of the Internet.

I guess I just don't see the point. I suppose it doesn't really do any harm, but as Patrik states, it isn't going to have any impact so why bother? 

Regards,
-drc