[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Dave and others,

Here, I forward Karl Auerbach's response to your comment.


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:07:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
To: Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr>
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution (fwd)


Crocker's argument is based on the belief that there must be, and shall
be, one catholic name system for the internet.  If you believe that then
the concept of one root is an axiom.  But that does not answer the
question: If there is one true root, which one of the many claimants might
it be?  It is simply by the same kind assertion that one claims that one
religion is superior to others that one can claim that the ICANN/NTIA root
is superior to those roots with which it competes - if there is to be but
one root, any one could be "the true one".

However, if one realizes that name systems are simply a layered-on service
and that everybody can pick and chose their own name system, and that
conflicts that arise due to such choices are political disputes not
technical ones, then competing roots are simply natural.

As for an existance proof: I have not used the ICANN/NTIA root for years 
and I have never had any interoperability problems.

For a broader set of comments take a look at:

	http://www.cavebear.com/rw/nrc_presentation_july_11_2001.ppt

One could take Crocker's argument and apply it to any evolving technolgy 
- whether it be touch-tone telephones evolving from rotary dial or it be 
HDTV evolving from NTSC/PAL/SECAM - as one creates technology that 
supersets the old, those who don't advance with the technology often find 
that they can not readily use the new features.  The same is true with 
those who adhere to the non-evolving ICANN/NTIA single-root concept.

		--karl--







On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 
> >--> The single DNS root leads to excessive administrative (not technical)
> >centralization.
> 
> Administrative centralization for a registry is required by the technical 
> nature of the DNS administered.  Hence the requirement for centralized 
> registry administration is technical.
> 
> As to whether it is "excessive":  That is an emotional term and it is not 
> based on any metric.  Given that there currently exists no technically 
> credible way to do anything other than centralization, it can be strongly 
> argued that centralized registry administration is exactly the right 
> amount.  Not too little.  Not too much.
> 
> 
> >ICANN should support the evolutionary development of the
> >DNS (operation and administration) away from a centralized architecture
> >(and not tightly bound by a centralized architecture)
> 
> Such a statement is useless.  Again, it is like saying that we are for 
> world peace.  Of course we are.  The problem is that no one knows how to 
> achieve it.
> 
> 
> >I read this statement not in technological context but in administrative
> >context. In this context, Karl Auerbach's arguments sound good.
> 
> Indeed, Karl's statements do sound highly appealing.  Unfortunately they 
> are entirely without technical credibility.
> 
> And, no, that is not just my own informed opinion.  Notice that he has 
> never pursued his arguments in the IETF.  And he probably never will, 
> because he knows that they are silly arguments, espousing a technical 
> approach that simply does not work.
> 
> 
> >What's
> >your response to his arguments? I basically understand what you are
> >repeatedly emphasizing about single root server mechanism although I
> >cannot understand why that point should be repeatedly stated.
> 
> I have repeatedly cited the detailed analysis about this.  Please read:
> 
>          <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-unique-assign-01.txt>
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>