Re: Split the IANA functions?

avri doria <avri@ella.com> Tue, 07 January 2014 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@ella.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 E2ACA1ADF72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:27:44 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 JUUZ0QJRuDdQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73251ADF6D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.206]) by atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s07FRWxK001890 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:27:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 5373 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jan 2014 15:27:32 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.15.109?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Jan 2014 15:27:32 -0000
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:27:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Split the IANA functions?
Message-ID: <667offmffdw4wef4wh9ofns3.1389108450398@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: avri doria <avri@ella.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ietf@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_8764175946230600"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:07:02 -0800
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 15:27:45 -0000

Hi,

I thought the only reason the DNS root is a single root and not a banyan like root, is because classes don't really work and there has been a political (business, economic etc ) tendency (hard to call it decision) to not fix or replace.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> 
Date:01/07/2014  09:44  (GMT-05:00) 
To: ietf@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: Split the IANA functions? 

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