technical accuracy (was Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc.)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I am sorry but it would be much more conducive to discussion if faulty and long discredited technical "theories" aren't aired at such great length.

Your implementation was not and has never been adopted at scale so its technical features or presumed benefits are anyway moot. 

So please adopt a more realistic terms of reference for any further discussion about DNS. The term as used refers to a specific implementation, with a fixed set of root servers, currently I. Worldwide operation, not one of any number of cranks' conception of what the DNS should be.

--srs (iPad)

> On 26-Oct-2013, at 15:00, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
> On 19:47 26/10/2013, David Conrad said:
>> [cc and subject lines cleaned up]
>> 
>> JFC,
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> > In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition" strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. Your responses show that it is not.
>> My responses show that I take issue with technical inaccuracy, nothing more.
> 
> The issue was just to know about the cooperation desire of the Technical Community coalition with the rest of the stakeholders. In order to know if  we are confronted to a positive precautionary move or to a negative power grab.
> 
>> Well, OK, that and I personally find it discourteous to folks who might not be fully comfortable in English to make up words and play silly word games.
> 
> Well, you are welcome to make up the English missing terms in more civilized/advanced languages ... Personnaly I find "wholization" accurate but awfull.
> 
>> > For you the internet root is the unique reference point of the universe instead of being one of the 65,635 windows for the universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035).
>> For me (and I believe most people), the Internet root is the unique reference point to the common namespace used in resolving names on the Internet via the DNS protocol suite.
> 
> Yes this is what I understand you presume. Since you are all for accuracy this means that these "most people" will not raise normative contradiction. A good news for the rest of us.
> 
>> Also, I do not equate the Internet with the universe.
> 
> We were talking of the digital naming roots. Internet is not concerned.
> 
> What you taught me is that even when discussing in English with someone who has been in charge and who takes issue with technical inaccuracy it is better to detail the things in a non-internet language. I mean that when two systems are to interface and be compatible togther one can try the courtesy to use the words and the language of the other side to simplify their task. From your response, I gather that on this specific issue, we should not proceed that way.
> 
> We would probably be better in using the ITU or the JTC1 first, rather than trying to jointly propose with IETF. This might be a very precious tip. Thank you!
> 
>> > 2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots of the human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the authors of its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those who selected the labels they used.
>> 
>> Well, no. I expressed surprise that there was no reference by the authors of the DNS specifications to your and your colleagues work since it would comprise a core component of the DNS namespace and according to you it pre-dated the DNS specifications by nearly a decade. Next time I meet up with Paul Mockapetris, I'm planning on asking him about it -- I've always  been a bit curious how the initial set of TLDs (other than .ARPA -- that one is obvious) were chosen.
> 
> The test to know if the guy you talk to knows about the story is to ask him "why .uk"?
> 
>> >> When someone asserts "This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots." I feel a need to comment.
>> > RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3.
>> I am reasonably familiar with both RFC 1035 (having written a couple of partial implementations of the DNS) and ICP-3.  I guess I'm not bright enough to derive how either of those documents lead to a view that the DNS was designed to support 35,635 roots.
> 
> As having made several roots being test operated on the Internet for 18 months (dot-root community project) in order to investgate the reliabilty running different roots and no root servers, I can tell you that this is not rocket science: just to use Bind files as per the documentation. ITU even commissionned one of us (unfortunately deceased during the study) to report them how they could replace ICANN. Multiple roots are documented as a possible future, even for the Internet, by ICP/3.
> 
> If you want sometimes discuss this technically (no "open-root" fuss please) and the open-code DNS extension plan, you are most welcome. Unfortunately the dot-root report is in French.
> BTW you probably know this: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t