Re: new DNS classes or anything else
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 12:32 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F521329C5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 05:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 a01bhhQC7FAg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (static-65-175-133-137.cpe.metrocast.net [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6D1D131CD4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1dSjTK-000DF3-4p; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:31:58 -0400
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:31:53 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: new DNS classes or anything else
Message-ID: <2A04F4AA4BA9DCBC344AF7DA@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170705013931.67812.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20170705013931.67812.qmail@ary.lan>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RiWDKXAW8zerhiWRlsntCt1wiNE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:32:06 -0000
--On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:39 AM +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <7DCA3DAF1993A2E66915D0DD@JcK-HP5.jck.com> you > write: >> Having enough of the world get aggravated enough at ICANN (or >> some other entity of one's choice) to make general adoption of >> an alternate root plausible is another matter and I don't >> think we are there, at least yet. > > Here in the IETF we are so close to ICANN that we suffer from > sample bias. To the extent the outside world is even aware of > ICANN, they see that .com, .org, .net, and the large ccTLDs > all work, registering in them is straightforward and not too > expensive, and everything else is noise. One advantage of > ICANN's turgid bureaucratic processes is that it makes it > unlikely that they will do anything seriously destructive > because it would be too hard. Were ICANN be the source of a serious problem (see below), I think it would be far more likely to be the result of a "can't say 'no'" failure of those processes that allows something seriously destructive to occur than the result of an affirmative decision to do something. I think we've had some near-misses in that regard, YMMD. Beyond that, I could quibble, but, in the interest of brevity, won't. > We all know how to run our own roots if that's what we want to > do, but I continue to observe approximately none of us doing > it. Completely consistent with my earlier comment. I think. or at least hope, that we all understand the advantages of a single and unique root (those who don't might want to review RFC 2826). An alternate root is a tipping-point problem. For one to be plausible, there would have to be a rather large number of committed adopters (my guess is that it would take a collection of significant state actors, but there are other scenarios). Your making the switch, my making the switch, even every participant in the IETF making the switch wouldn't amount to anything. If one asks the question of what it would take for a collection of significant state actors to make the move, my guess it that it would take a crisis event that would either be very disruptive or get a lot of bad publicity. "Aggravated enough at ICANN" was shorthand for the most likely collection of sources of (or blame for) such an event I could think of quickly. I do not consider that likely. Indeed, I think it is more likely that assorted IETF work to expand DNS capabilities beyond their rational limits are more likely to cause serious problems. But that doesn't seem to be the topic of this thread. john
- Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-… Warren Kumari
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Ralph Droms
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnso… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Paul Vixie
- new DNS classes Jim Reid
- Re: new DNS classes Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes David Conrad
- Re: new DNS classes John C Klensin
- Re: new DNS classes Paul Vixie
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes or anything else John Levine
- Re: new DNS classes or anything else George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: new DNS classes Randy Bush
- Re: new DNS classes or anything else Randy Bush
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: new DNS classes or anything else John C Klensin
- Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-su… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnso… Ted Lemon
- Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnso… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: new DNS classes John Levine
- Re: Minor philosophical update to draft-ietf-dnso… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: new DNS classes John C Klensin
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Randy Bush
- Re: new DNS classes shogunx
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Martin Rex
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-… John C Klensin
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes David Cake
- Re: new DNS classes Paul Vixie
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes David Conrad
- Re: new DNS classes william manning
- Re: new DNS classes Pete Resnick
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: new DNS classes Pete Resnick
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes Nico Williams
- Re: new DNS classes Pete Resnick
- Re: new DNS classes Randy Bush
- Re: new DNS classes Mark Andrews
- Re: new DNS classes John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes Andrew Sullivan
- Re: new DNS classes John Levine
- Re: new DNS classes Phillip Hallam-Baker