IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C8F3A68D1; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927913A6887 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWNkXtTxG2d5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F395E3A681C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1841521wah.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iu+A6RAo7rDsfBMsz1MIQsVXPw0whzs4AOj6iN1/ynI=; b=GUfte1G5B4Cuq0TZqu0s5IwwlrACj1XectxXCiV6AC43XHc2dnK7ysygjVwBB2akfj trDJ9PLvfwoBAttJB4SJQ+J2NCG5SpifE0OCjkxDhTa3ldVeBKpgqiMhxduCvYrJMpnJ 0/QOn6b06mUEG5XNDEOsxx9zhVLPMUJ3CxQTA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=tvRmBK82+qePlS+lP9SEk4fJzMyZzTXf98mbN/RUH/rI2CGgqyQ0zZ3c4sxy+PKbDB 3YwopSEDQ1u2hl4x+PNtiQ8wCOq++j0sCV1dsOO0BUmedR4F4dFGiWLu1zNaTUJ7NLyo e1W5MN/Lk2lCcFgAE+p7BxRsYPAKvby68e8fk=
Received: by 10.114.205.1 with SMTP id c1mr7331976wag.56.1215488942813; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [118.93.5.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k24sm7947598waf.33.2008.07.07.20.49.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4872E3A7.9070705@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:48:55 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
References: <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org> <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net> <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM> <4872BF88.5040706@bbiw.net> <558a39a60807071836s38244439g4054b1175a976454@mail.gmail.com> <49D74735-AB16-4ABE-B626-EF7BC099EAD9@ca.afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <49D74735-AB16-4ABE-B626-EF7BC099EAD9@ca.afilias.info>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, James Seng <james@seng.sg>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Joe,

On 2008-07-08 14:55, Joe Abley wrote:
...
> I'm not suggesting that growth should be allowed to happen without
> considering the technical consequences. However, I believe in practice
> with the headroom in systems and network that root server operators
> generally install anyway, there's considerable room for growth 

'Considerable' isn't science. How many orders of magnitude do we
have good reason to believe is OK?

> and the
> general argument that growth in the root zone will undermine stability
> sounds more like hysteria than science.

No, it sounds like an absence of science. All we know is that
we are somewhere between 'considerable room for growth' and
'undermining stability.'

Frankly I don't think we have any more idea of the answer to that
than we did on 23 Feb 1998 when the IAB wrote to Ira Magaziner
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg04154.html):

> On the other hand, a very large increase in the total number of gTLDs
> (say to thousands) would lead us into technically unknown territory.

I suggest that there is some urgency in conducting a data-based
study of where the limit to stability lies.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email