John L wrote:
ICANN has not to date dealt very effectively with these issues, but
they are real issues that will have a great effect on people who use
the DNS every day, and they're not technical issues, since all of the
alternatives are equally feasible technically.
At its base, IDN is a
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, what homograph rules apply to what domains? Are the
rules per-TLD or some other granularity? What are the appropriate
rules for GTLDs, since they don't have a native language other than
the de-facto English? If there
John Levine wrote:
ICANN has not to date dealt very effectively with these issues, but
they are real issues that will have a great effect on people who use
the DNS every day, and they're not technical issues, since all of the
alternatives are equally feasible technically.
At its base, IDN is
ICANN has not to date dealt very effectively with these issues, but
they are real issues that will have a great effect on people who use
the DNS every day, and they're not technical issues, since all of the
alternatives are equally feasible technically.
At its base, IDN is a technical matter.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
John L wrote:
At its base, IDN is a technical matter. That is the realm of the
IETF, not ICANN. ICANN can deploy and administer solutions developed
in the IETF, but it cannot create them. That's not its job and it's
not its
John L wrote:
There are both technical issues and non-technical issues.
[...]
BTW, I liked your travel-sitefinder statement on behalf of ALAC.
Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
I actually think the question of how a namespace is to be administered
is a perfectly valid one for the IETF to consider if it impacts the
performance or functionality of a protocol.
Yes, as long as it can be expressed technically. RFC 2826 and
My research group, as well as everyone who currently uses PlanetLab (and
presumably the future GENI platform, if it comes to pass) faces a
different deployment scenario than what the operational folks are used
to. Setting up anycast might be possible, but is operationally very very
difficult for
From: Emin Gun Sirer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My terminology is correct, and your message is a simple ad
hominem.
No his argument was not an ad hominem.
An ad hominem argument is an argument of the form 'Osama Bin Laden believes X,
Osama Bin Laden is a bad person, therefore X is false
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Stephane Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the invaluable
discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I think we now agree
that it is possible to have multiple operators manage names in a single,
shared namespace without recourse to a
You can solve the problems in various ways (see Emin Gun Sirer's
message) but most of them create a super-registry on the top of R1
and R2 and you are back to the unique registry model.
This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will
cover lots of design
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
As an Internet user, I wonder about two things in the long term:
- why is it so expensive to register a name?
- what can we do to keep SiteFinderJr from happening?
what do you think of as expensive?
I can register a name for a year for the price of 2
Brian E Carpenter wrote, On 29/11/2006 10:43:
your question is linked to whether we treat the namespace as a public
good to be administered for the greater public good, or as a
commodity to be treated like coffee beans. And that really isn't
a question for this technological community.
Depends
On 28Nov 2006, at 9:36 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
path MTU and have to be fragmented. (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC
2671 not
advancing on the standards track?)
For the same reason almost none of the other DNS RFCs have not
advanced.
Any volunteers for performing interoperability tests
what do you think of as expensive?
Anything that has 1000% or higher markup. There is also another kind of
expense: solving the SiteFinder problem took a lot of time, public
outcry and moral outrage from a large group of people. It would have
been nice to just scoot over to a competitor. These
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
As an Internet user, I wonder about two things in the long term:
- why is it so expensive to register a name?
- what can we do to keep SiteFinderJr from happening?
what do you think of as expensive?
I don't think that would be the only patent you would need
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patrick Vande Walle; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Something better than DNS?
On Nov
At 11:42 -0500 11/29/06, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Let's not torque the discussion off topic. Free market economics does
not come to bear on the issue because there is no free market to speak
of for registries.
What did I say about frictionless surfaces?
A quick question: Right now, we'd like
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:40:09PM -0500,
Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 56 lines which said:
The terminology used here indicates a need for a deeper understanding of
DNS.
I suspect that he is deliberately trolling, in order to prove a point
(that DNS is too limited to
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:42:17AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
Right now, we'd like to have a domain delegated to a large number
(say 100+) of nameservers.
See Edward Lewis' respond (basically, global anycast + local anycast
and you have
Hi -
I actually think the question of how a namespace is to be administered
is a perfectly valid one for the IETF to consider if it impacts the
performance or functionality of a protocol.
We do that all the time when we give explicit instructions to the IANA
in an IANA Considerations
From: Edward Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:42 -0500 11/29/06, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Let's not torque the discussion off topic. Free market
economics does
not come to bear on the issue because there is no free
market to speak
of for registries.
What did I say about
On Nov 29, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't think that would be the only patent you would need
Here is a somewhat more complete list:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01076.html
-Doug
___
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:58:11AM +0100,
Patrick Vande Walle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
Add to that the current architecture does not allow competition at
the TLD level. There can only be one registry for any given TLD,
leading to artificial scarcity and lack
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:39:59PM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 99 lines which said:
the name hierarchy and the server hierarchy are intertwined. This
leads to a natural monopoly. Suppose you want a .COM name, but also
want to boycott VeriSign over SiteFinder?
Hi Stephane,
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:41 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
let's assume two registries R1 and R2
manage the namespace .example. A customer C1 wants to create
foobar.example and asks to registry R1. A customer C2 wants to create
foobar.example and asks to registry R2. There is
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:32:00AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
A basic course on distributed systems will cover lots of design
alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric, mutually distrusting and
there exists no super-registry,
Feel free
Stephane,
It is not artificial, it is the way it has to work. You cannot have
multiple registries for one TLD, period. No more than you can have
perpetual motion.
Be careful about making statements about impossibility without an
associated impossibility proof. History is full of people who
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:45:56 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the problem with most one namespace, several registries
proposals. There is still a registry to coordinate the so-called
several registries so you're back to step 1.
Most? I'd have said all.
The name
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:14:54AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Be careful about making statements about impossibility without an
associated impossibility proof.
Already sent. Of course, proofs, like software, may have bugs :-) The
IETF is
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will
cover lots of design alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric,
mutually distrusting and there exists no super-registry, yet there is a
way to establish whether R1 or R2 acquired the name first.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:28:11PM +0100,
Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 11 lines which said:
what do you mean by mutually distrusting in this context?
In distributed systems, mutually distrusting means they are not
under the same rule (not in the same AS would say a BGP
But I'll do this only if asked.
Consider it done.
Ok, here is a rough protocol sketch. For simplicity, I'll gloss over
non-critical details, e.g. timeout handling. Bear with the notation,
we'll end up with something neat at the end:
- assume that R1 and R2 pick random numbers r1 and r2
What this thread is lacking is:
There is a difference between being a registry and being a DNS operator.
The role of a registry is to associate a resource with a principle.
Like a domain name with a company. Or range of addresses with a
person. Or a value in a protocol field with a semantic.
Hi Ed,
The one weakness I see in the presentation of CoDoNS is one that is
common amongst academic exercises. While it treats a technical
problem in a formally defined say, it suffers from the assume
frictional surfaces syndrome. This disease is not fatal, it is more
like the flu,
From: Emin Gun Sirer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephane,
It is not artificial, it is the way it has to work. You cannot have
multiple registries for one TLD, period. No more than you can have
perpetual motion.
Be careful about making statements about impossibility
without an
Beware academic speculation, it has a tendency to obsess on the
exact wrong thing.
Indeed. (And I should know, having taken eight years to get my PhD.)
From a technical point of view, the registry/registrar model works
fine. I have plenty of bad things to say about VRSN, but it is hard
to
John Levine wrote:
As someone noted a few days ago, ICANN and the current roots have yet
to address the issues related to IDNs. There's only one significant
technical issue, mapping non-unique Unicode strings into unique DNS
names
There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge,
At 12:05 -0800 11/28/06, Karl Auerbach wrote:
path MTU and have to be fragmented. (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC 2671 not
advancing on the standards track?)
For the same reason almost none of the other DNS RFCs have not advanced.
RFC 3596 being the lone Draft Standard.
RFC 1034/1035 being the
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:57:08AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
If GoDaddy and TuCows both attempt to register the same name at the
same time they may well submit their orders through separate
machines. Ultimately there is a
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:31:04AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 64 lines which said:
Ok, here is a rough protocol sketch.
Very interesting. One more reason to ask it is transformed into a full
Internet-Draft. Do you think it fits well in Hallam-Baker, Phillip's
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:57:08AM -0800, Hallam-Baker,
Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 31 lines which said:
If GoDaddy and TuCows both attempt to register the same name at the
same time they may well submit their
Stephane Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the invaluable
discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I think we now agree
that it is possible to have multiple operators manage names in a single,
shared namespace without recourse to a centralized
Vande Walle; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Something better than DNS?
Stephane Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the
invaluable discussion here and beefing up the system sketch.
I think we now agree that it is possible to have multiple
operators manage names
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Stephane Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the
invaluable discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I
think we now agree that it is possible to have multiple operators
manage names in a single,
Karl,
On Nov 28, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge, been
adequately researched, and that is the expansion in the size of the
response packets.
I suppose that depends on your definition of adequately.
This will by itself
Emin,
On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:31 AM, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
we'd be happy if IANA just signed the single TLD delegations already.
IANA, of course, doesn't sign TLD delegations. Even the question of
who signs the root is a subject of debate since IANA doesn't actually
operate the
(By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC 2671 not advancing on the standards
track?)
Good question.
Rgds,
-drc
It's on the dnsext charter though a little late.
Jun 2005RFC2671 (EDNS0) to Draft Standard
Most of the issues with RFC2671 are the result on non
Peter Dambier wrote, On 23/11/2006 19:01:
DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
DNS is no longer about publishing information about hostnames and numbers
but about keeping this information a seecret.
Not sure I understand your point. You query a record, you get an
On 27Nov 2006, at 10:58 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
return reliable answers to
queries, it should also make it possible to have multiple
registries for
the same TLD
Hmmm, Reliable answers and multiple registries for the same TLD
in the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply
DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
Not sure I understand your point. You query a record, you get an answer.
Why on earth would you want to suck all the world's zone files ?
Some people want to publish their own Domain Naming Service
with additional information
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
Hmmm, Reliable answers and multiple registries for the same TLD in
the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies that there
is no coherency, which I interpret as not being reliable.
From
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
Hmmm, Reliable answers and multiple registries for the same TLD in
the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies that there
is no coherency, which I interpret as not being reliable.
From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/beehive/codons-sigcomm04/
node15.html
CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the
same part of the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing
operators would preserve a single
--On Monday, 27 November, 2006 12:44 +0100 Patrick Vande Walle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
Hmmm, Reliable answers and multiple registries for the
same TLD in the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies
that
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this, I really have to wonder
John Levine wrote:
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this, I
Oops - I forgot about that one. Yes the Chinese Ministry of Information
and Industry have many chinese top level domains registered. The are
now the largest alternative root system on the planet next to icann and
resolve for some 150 million users. And i anticipate they will soon
surpass
Hi,
Let me expand on how DNSSEC coupled with a cooperative, p2p architecture
for DNS can help enable competition among TLDs. The short summary is:
- CoDoNS+DNSSEC enable any server to securely serve any name,
which makes it possible, should the community decide to
pursue it,
John Levine wrote:
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting or inconsistent
for a group of private
individuals to do the same thing.
-Original Message-
From: Joe Baptista [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: do it yourself roots, was Something better than DNS?
Oops - I
On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:48 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
On the other hand, if one is going to have a network in which all
resources are publicly available and unambiguous without prior
negotiations between each client and server and in which one
doesn't want to allow the time and resources for
DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
DNS is no longer about publishing information about hostnames and numbers
but about keeping this information a seecret.
So not using DNS at all and distributing host files is much better than
DNS and more reliable :)
On the other
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
p.s. rather than adding more and more burdens to DNS, what we really need to
be doing is figuring out how to replace it with something more robust and
more flexible. (Yes, you'd have to arrange that DNS queries and queries to
the new database would
DNS is getting very long in the tooth, and is entirely too inflexible
and too fragile. The very fact that we're having a discussion about
whether it makes more sense to add a new RR type or use TXT records
with DKIM is a clear indicator that something seriously is wrong with
DNS. Adding a new
On Nov 22, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
DNS is getting very long in the tooth, and is entirely too
inflexible and too fragile. The very fact that we're having a
discussion about whether it makes more sense to add a new RR type
or use
68 matches
Mail list logo
