[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

[Kent Crispin]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 12:01:55AM +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> Dear Dave and others,
> 
> Here, I forward Karl Auerbach's response to your comment.

Chun, Karls response simply doesn't address the technical issues.  His 
response is simply political rhetoric.  See below:
> 
> 
> 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.

This is not true.  Crocker's argument is based on the technical 
constraints of DNS.  

> 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".

The above is simply political rhetoric.  There is one telephone 
numbering system for the world.  Nobody gets exercised about there 
being "one true telephone numbering system".

> 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.

Think of the telephone system again: According to Karl's argument,
competing numbering systems should be "simply natural", but in fact,
they don't exist.  Karl ignores the following simple fact: there is
tremendous value to having a naming (or numbering) system that
*everyone* can use and count on, and consequently, the human race goes
to the trouble of maintaining such systems.  The DNS is one such 
system.

That is, the service that DNS provides to the Internet is precisely a 
global, universal single name space.  Without it, the Internet simply 
would not be anywhere near as useful as it is; in fact, we wouldn't be 
having this conversation.

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

Karl is simply misrepresenting the facts -- in fact, of course, he *is*
using the ICANN/NTIA root -- he just copies the data locally, to make
his own cache of the data.  He claims that this is not "using" the 
root, but of course, he is.  If he wasn't, you wouldn't be able to talk 
to him.

> 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.

The above comment doesn't actually address the point that Dave was 
making.  Karl is having a dialog with himself, and trying to convince 
you that it is really a response to Dave's comments.


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain