[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

[Dave Crocker]

Eung Hwi,

At 12:21 PM 11/7/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Although usually this could be a writing habit, even those above phrases
>look somewhat impolite.
...

Most of your note offers assessments of my writing, my understanding and my 
tone.

You have a choice.  You can deal with the people who are here or you cannot.

What will not happen is for anyone to change very much.

If you ever wish to discuss substantive matters, in a substantial manner, 
please do let us know.


>By and large, I feel that as for you, there is some severe
>miscommunication or misunderstanding of others' arguments because of the
>differences between your way of thinking and others'.

One last time:  This is not a matter of miscommunication or 
misunderstanding.  The technical issues are extremely simple.  Karl chooses 
to pretend that they are not.

I note that among your comments, you do not seem to be dealing with any of 
the particular details that have been raised.  Permit me to encourage you 
to familiarize yourself with the details.  It will make consideration of 
the issues far more productive.


>I tried to clarify this point in a few ways, but it seems to be not easy
>for me particularly because I am a non-English speaker.
>Dave, you didn't catch what I meant at all.

As you have seen, your English is far better than my Korean.

So, now you get the only other Korean I know:  kamsa-hamneda.


>Then again, now, you are saying that no, it is not a
>technical one.

My intent was to emphasize that it is, in fact, technical.  It is ONLY 
technical.


>others are talking about administratative or policy issues.

Yes, Karl does claim that it is a matter of administration and policy.  He 
also claims that a very specific document from the formal body of senior 
Internet technology creators -- the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) -- is 
policy and politics.  He says this, in spite of the fact that the IAB tries 
very hard to keep away from politics and that they were explicit in stating 
that their document is technical.

Again, please note that it is not enough for someone to say something is 
true.  They must provide some proof.  In the case of Karl's position, he 
has carefully conducted his efforts only in the very politicized 
environment of ICANN and the media.  He carefully keeps away from the 
primary technical body of the Internet.  And he carefully avoids providing 
a detailed technical specification for his proposal.

These facts should say something important to you.  It does to me.


>prevents you from hearing and understanding others' arguments.

Have you read the citations I provided?  One of them should make quite 
clear to you that your assessment is quite incorrect.


>But it is different statement from that in other DNSes, there must
>be many other root servers.

Sorry, no.  Among the technical community that has extensive, long-term, 
large-scale DNS experience, there is no one who agrees with Karl.  And, 
yes, I mean NO ONE.

Please note that Karl does NOT have extensive, long-term, large-scale DNS 
experience.  He has extensive, large-scale, long-term experience with SOME 
Internet technologies and activities.  But not the DNS.

So, Eung Hwi, if you want to continue to make personal observations, I 
encourage you to consider personal aspects of each person's experience and 
venue.  What background do people have, where have they obtained it, and do 
they conduct their business carefully and in the right forum?

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464