Re: naming debates
It's just that IETF has discussed this periodically for many years. Understood and valid. And this will be my last post to the main page on this subject. What I would like to point out as that the change to the root, that ICANN has described as never been before, has now been done. If there was ever a time for a technologist to apply their expertise for the benefit of the community on this subject matter, now is it. For the IETF not to take this position and perform whatever it is it does by way of technical due diligence on a matter of this type of gravity is, to this lay person, a complete neglect of its purpose and responsibilities regardless of discussions that have taken place prior. Am I wrong? If not, can someone please make the recommendation by way of proper IETF protocol and get it started? Ray --
Re: naming debates
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, at 13:11 [=GMT-0800], Rick Wesson wrote: dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. Not even the technical scalabilty of the root-zone? there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does that still exist? those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some place else. -- [03] I thank you for your time and interest. http://logoff.org/
Re: naming debates
But [EMAIL PROTECTED] carries zero weight in ICANN discussions, so taking this discussion there is a total waste of time. If ICANN and IETF want the discussion to go elsewhere, then it will go where it wishes to go and not cave in to ICANN control (i.e., bottling up) of the discussion. Or, if you do not want to see other opinions or ideas, just put your spam filters to work, or subscribe to the CENSORED version of the IETF list. We like the way ostriches deal with things they do not wish to see ;-)... Cheers...\Stef At 1:11 PM -0800 12/3/02, Rick Wesson wrote: dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some place else. thanks, -rick
Re: naming debates
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 01:19 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote: On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, at 13:11 [=GMT-0800], Rick Wesson wrote: dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. Not even the technical scalabilty of the root-zone? No. See the DNSOP working group. there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does that still exist? Yes. Rgds, -drc
Re: naming debates
We like the way ostriches deal with things they do not wish to see ;-)... listen to this very carefully: GET YOUR ENDLESS DNS RANTS OFF OF THE IETF DISCUSSION LIST this has been going on for over a decade and reasonable people have grown tired of it. there is absolutely nothing of technical interest in any of this discussion. it's just a DDOS against thousands of mailboxes. TAKE IT ELSEWHERE if you don't like the list that rick suggested, that's fine. use another, non-technical list. may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? we've already had a couple of warning shots on this, so i think it's perfectly reasonable to view persistent offenders as having fallen into the fleming category. let's nuke'em for a year and move on. kind regards, /mtr
RE: naming debates
Hello Marshall: listen to this very carefully: GET YOUR ENDLESS DNS RANTS OFF OF THE IETF DISCUSSION LIST this has been going on for over a decade and reasonable people have grown tired of it. Being relatively new to IETF discussions... I have a few questions concerning your comment: When over a dozen people make comments of interest, regarding a topic on the list, would it not seem that some people are not tired of it? What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? we've already had a couple of warning shots on this, so i think it's perfectly reasonable to view persistent offenders as having fallen into the fleming category. let's nuke'em for a year and move on. Doesn't this sound a little extreme? Or is this the straw that broke the camels back for you? kind regards, /mtr Regards, Mark
Re: naming debates
On Wednesday, Dec 4, 2002, at 12:09 America/Montreal, Marshall Rose wrote: may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? Concur. This is just a DDOS attack on the list and its well nigh time to to act to clean up the list and improve the SNR. Ran
Re: naming debates
Mark What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a Mark topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? See: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? Amen. This topic has become a denial of service attack on the ietf list. d/ -- Dave mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
RE: naming debates
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Mark Harris wrote: When over a dozen people make comments of interest, regarding a topic on the list, would it not seem that some people are not tired of it? What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? What were dealing with here Mark is a political issue. Known ietf/icann/doc insiders have a pressing need to limit debate on the issues. Indeed dns, naming and root service is very much an ietf topic of interest. Thats why the drum banging is so loud. It serves the special interest on this list that such debate be limited or altogether eliminated. cheers joe baptista
Re: naming debates
Thus spake Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Being relatively new to IETF discussions... I have a few questions concerning your comment: When over a dozen people make comments of interest, regarding a topic on the list, would it not seem that some people are not tired of it? What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? The IETF is organized into WGs that deal with individual issues; by your argument, all of the WGs should conduct their business on the main IETF list. Clearly this doesn't scale. There are lots of DNS lists out there, and this argument certainly isn't new. I apologize for wasting everyone's bandwidth/time this round and won't continue to do so; I hope others follow suit. S
re: naming debates
dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. sorry, but the technologists are married to the naming debates as much as they feel comfortable with the hit-and-run approach of having a material impact upon the DNS market place. Especially those technologists that like to throw out quick sound bytes about market demand or other economic variables as if speaking from a position of expertise or proper due diligence of a for-profit spectrum. Conservatism based upon an area of expertise is fine. Unfortunately, many technologists have failed to live within their bounds and, where DNS is concerned, have allowed others with not so technically altruistic motivations adversely affect consumers. So, welcome to the wedding. Those technologists that want a divorce need simply go on record in some formal way regarding the technical impact the first round TLD expansion has had upon root server functionality and overall architecture, extrapolate this as they know how, make their recommendation, and move on. Is this really outside the technical scope of the IETF? Ray --
Re: naming debates
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, at 10:53 [=GMT-0800], Dave Crocker wrote: Mark What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a Mark topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? See: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? Amen. This topic has become a denial of service attack on the ietf list. Coming from someone who deliberately disrupted the ncdnhc list for years, this sound very sour. I guess this is US democracy, right?
Re: naming debates (fwd)
The message below I wanted to send only to Dave Crocker. For a mailing list, it is too cryptic. I apologize. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:04:50 +0100 (CET) From: Marc Schneiders [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: naming debates On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, at 10:53 [=GMT-0800], Dave Crocker wrote: Mark What is the process, within the IETF, if a group sees interest in pursuing a Mark topic, while not burdening others, like yourself? See: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html may i humbly ask harold to start dropping folks from ietf-general who continue to post on this topic? Amen. This topic has become a denial of service attack on the ietf list. Coming from someone who deliberately disrupted the ncdnhc list for years, this sound very sour. I guess this is US democracy, right?
Re: naming debates
dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. Is this really outside the technical scope of the IETF? No, it's not. It's just that IETF has discussed this periodically for many years. That discussion has produced no consensus, much heat, little light, nothing new to say, and nothing new to be learned about DNS operation from such debate during most of that time. The DNS debate is probably the least productive recurring discussion we have. I don't like the idea of ruling technical subjects out-of-scope for the IETF list. However I suspect it would be more productive if instead of repeating the same arguments over and over, those of us with strong feelings about the subject would put their positions on a web page, and whenever the discussion crops up again, simply send in the URLs. There are other debates besides DNS naming for which this would also be a good idea. Keith
naming debates
dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some place else. thanks, -rick
