Re: Split the IANA functions?

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 07 January 2014 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 033BD1AD9B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 06:44:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 Z_nvzAB7fBOa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 06:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8E1AD8EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 06:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 981AE8A031 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:44:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:44:12 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Split the IANA functions?
Message-ID: <20140107144412.GB11068@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <CAMm+LwinAb6+7BoMzwBWyu63vofndxK9VY6DSNN0Ykza4SxuMQ@mail.gmail.com> <52CB0010.5010407@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhN8+z9q4KQXVY9bWA6TAqxx1=Qg0OUfK=VGCSDg5uWEA@mail.gmail.com> <DD618936-0D13-41F1-8D89-2E3171D864B5@istaff.org> <52CB31F4.3090703@cs.tcd.ie> <52CB987A.20300@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52CB987A.20300@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:44:25 -0000

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:02:34AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> That there is a single root is both a technical AND a
> political decision. 

I have to disagree with this.  The uniqueness of the root is not a
political decision.  It's a fact of mathematics.  DNS is a tree.
There's one root.

Now, one might argue that choosing this kind of name space was a
political decision.  I might buy that argument (I don't know).  There's
good reason to suppose that there was at least some organizational
principle behind the decision in favour of a hierarchical namespace.
There were technical constraints too, I think: I don't believe a fully
peer to peer system was practical in the network environment of the
1980s.  But if we wanted to call anything that had non-technical
elements in it "political", then the selection of the DNS
(hierarchical) name space was in that sense political.

This is not to say that the single root doesn't have additional
political implications.  But I will not concede that this is some
contingent fact of the DNS that could be otherwise.  The particular
root we have could be different.  That there is a single root could
not.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com