Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 04 May 1996 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT)  [e-mail] 
wrote:
> > All nice desirable things.  But the assumptions of staffing levels, etc. are
> > so wonderfully <bleep> first-world arrogant that this is worth posting on one
> > of the lists for networking in developing countries.
> 
> 	If they are so bloody desireable, they why not tell people that they
> 	are?  Or are you in favor of keeping others information poor?

Bill,

While you and Randy continue to bash away at each other, let me 
try to identify the issue here in a different way and, in the 
process, stress that it is a real issue.

Let's assume we've got a poor sod trying to get a network and 
Internet connection established on a shoestring budget in a 
developing area.  Since Randy's names seem to offend you, let's 
just keep the country unnamed to protect the various actors (and 
because no two cases are exactly alike).  Now she undoubtedly 
wishes, and perhaps prays, every morning and night, for someone 
to come along and donate a good router, three or four high 
performance workstations, four DS3s (running directly to the 
US, Japan, Europe, and Australia), and the resources to find and 
pay a skilled network management staff composed of nationals 
from her country (not carpetbaggers or tourists).   While she is 
at it, she probably wishes for a few internationally-calibrated 
atomic reference clocks, but, given the DS3s, realizes that she 
can probably manage without them.  I can imagine few people with 
network experience who can't sympathize with the wishes, since 
few "developed area" networks are that well off. 

But, unlike some people who would otherwise be in that 
position and wish those wishes, she would prefer to get the 
Internet up and running rather than sitting around waiting for 
all of those nice things to happen first.   So she looks at a 
donated router that represents the state of the art five years 
ago (or an 8088 running KA9Q which several such countries have 
discovered will do the job) and a dialup link, or perhaps even a 
dedicated 9.6 kbps IP-over-X.25 link, and perhaps a 386 box 
running BSDI or Linux as the only candidates for "network 
operations center".  And she is going to be the staff for a 
while, perhaps with the addition of a 12-year-old cousin or a 
few other hacker-enthusiasts.  Now the question is: does she try 
to run TCP/IP or does she fall back on UUCP and/or Fidonet.  I 
think we can all agree that we'd prefer that TCP/IP be her 
choice.  At least I hope we can.

Now IETF (or just Bill Manning with presumed endorsement from 
world-renowned ISI) comes along and says "it really isn't 
acceptable to run a TLD without at least two or three high 
performance workstations, NTP synchronization, and a 7x24 
operations staff with backup for all positions in the event of 
sickness or vacations".   That message translates rather exactly 
and immediately into "don't bother running TCP/IP, it is too 
hard for you and you can't meet the qualifications.  Run 
something where people won't be trying to make these sorts of 
rules and where they are used to semi-attended machines and 
operations".

I don't like that answer very much.  Do you?

Now we run into the obvious defense: "this is just an 
information RFC, if it doesn't apply, don't pay any attention to 
it".  But we all know from experience that those labels and 
distinctions don't help much when someone is a little confused 
about the message and help even less when someone is trying to 
deliberately mislead or distort.  While I don't ever want 
someone told to not install an Internet link or technology 
because they are not big / wealthy / established enough, that 
position reflects my personal political biases.  There are 
institutions in many of these countries who believe that small, 
independent, Internet operations are a threat to their present 
or future plans and would love to have an "IETF RFC" in their 
hands to buttress their case that no one should be permitted to 
put an Internet network in until the Ministry of Grasping and 
Control (or its privatized equivalent) gets around to doing so 
(on its terms, of course).

That, IMO, is another not-very-good outcome.

Now, perhaps unlike Randy, I think your document contains mostly
very good suggestions for a somewhat better world than that in 
which we actually live.  If it had a rather carefully-developed 
introduction that explained the circumstances under which it 
really is and is not applicable and which discussed, in a 
positive way, sensible lower-cost fallbacks from some of the 
specific recommendations, my objections would disappear.  But, 
as it stands, I've got some pretty strong concerns about its 
being published.

    john