Subject: Re: [dnsop] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt

From: David C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:27:02 -0500

Someone, "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>, I think, said:

> the meaning of the word "global" differs in American and in English.

This was in response to:

>> DNS has been designed to present a single, globally unique name space

Could someone please elucidate the comment that "global" has different
connotations "in American and in English"?

I mean in this technical context, not with silly examples like how
America has narrowly scoped athletic contests but calls the victors
world champions.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:51:57 +0100

> >> DNS has been designed to present a single, globally unique name space

Yes, I am the "someone" :-). You might look at an American and at an
English Dictionary. However, it has so many technical implications to the
network, the DNS nd cybernetics that I will explain in PS for those interested.

If you are not interested, please disregard.
jfc

PS. In American as in other languages "global" means "from the whole
globe". This is confusing because this is understood as:
"universal, catholic" in American.
"all the parts of the globe" in French, English etc.

This is the very basis of every misunderstanding among network
architecture for 20 years (since we introduced the word in datacoms).
Probably one of the reason why the IAB never produced an
Internet model. Because by nature (DoD Jan 1974 specs), the
Internet is the internetting of several networks (and technologies
according to Vint) what fits the Anglo/French multiple/globality but
less the American global/universality.

So the global Internet is understood in American as the universal
TCP/IP system :  legal definition of the Internet (47 USC 230 (f)(1)).
In English, French and most of the other languages it will be
understood as the addition of all the different entities using TCP/IP.
The currently voted Franch law on the internet does not even care to
define "internet" it considers as a generic name, saying "by internet"
as you say "by train", "by car". This translates into current spelling
when you use a big or a small "I".

Due to the general usage of Basic American as a lingua franca this
is not noticed on a daily basis, but when we come to architecture
and governance organization the split is very important.

One the result is the difficulty to introduce granularity and
subsidiarity in an universal (unilateral) model while they are
the very basis of a global (multilateral) model. The problem
also of its cybernetics - (or governance, same Plato's word):
the way to manage datacom systems as per DARPA today -
the intelligent ubiquity of the eTEN European family of projected
services. We speak quickly of different things.

This is the whole dispute over RFC 1591, ICANN, ccNSO and
current UN hearings. This was the problem wich emerging at the
WSIS in December. The US culture understands the DNS as a
hierarchical system where the IANA delegates its authority to
TLD Managers as the trustees of their community (meaning the
people mutually trusted to fulfill the mission). While the rest of
the world understands it as a first level flat plan of equally
sovereign TLDs listed in the root file, managed by trustees
delegated by the registrants or their representatives (the States)
[BTW this is the way we built the international name space].
When VeriSign introduced PathFinder what chocked us the
post was the reaction by ICS and Paul Vixie to develop a
patch to block a decision by a TLD Manager. Because it said
where they considered the authority was. And the current
legal action is over that, the same as the UN meeting of today
in NY. They do not understand/say it fully yet, but the WSIS
shown they learn very fast/speak up more easily.

When I quote RFC 882 and RFC 883, it is because in RFC
883, Mokapetris describes the DNS as a true global (common
sense) system perfectly able to cope with the Anglo/French
meaning. While Jon Postel in the RFC 882 describes the way
he is going to manage for the ARPA Internet. Then they went
global (plugging into the international system). The result of the
international consensus is in the RFC 920, which is correctly
considered by ICANN as the source of its global legitimacy
on the legacy. But only on the Legacy.

In 1996 the US consensus (reflected into the USC) was not
yet stabilized (you see that in the definition of the data
services for the Telcos, leaving a lot of flexibility to the FCC
in order to define them). The same non finalized policy lead
to ICANN. Jon Postel had obviously understood that his
system was becoming the global network - and I suspect
from the Memo #1 to ccTLDs he understood it in the European
way (but he kept control in a very clever way, ICANN still
follows however it is now outdated). And he started acting in
the proper way (conflicting with many if I am correct) -
proposing new TLDs, playing with the root. But he died.

When I quote ICP-3, it is that who ever wrote it has done
a very very good job at respecting the ideas Jon Postel
certainly had, in our today context. The only thing I disagree
with (coming from the global side rather than going to it) is
that we must keep the concept of a single root. ICP-3
think that we might abandon it: it is true that we need to
abandon it as a "file", and make it a complex "matrix",
but we need to keep the concept of single (and to stop
confusing it with centralized). Single means to respect
the single global multiple diverse reality (Franco/English
meaning), not an unique universal vision (American).

Single and diverse means flexible and we may keep for
ever a generalized naming service. Unique and
universal means a non acceptable centralized control.

Now, the big step ahead of IPv6 is that the addressing
may now also become global and diverse in its turn.
This means that the restrictions Jon Postel imposed in
RFC 882 are no more necessary and that the system can
really be used as Mokapetris describes it in RFC 883.
Hence what I say.

However, not the way the IPv6.001 numbering plan
is designed as global (unique) and centralized. Leading
to concepts such as HIP etc. quite rewarding when selling
addresses and an IP DNS service. Hence the increasing
uneasiness here. But IPv6.010 or even IPv6.011 make no
difference in DNS and network connections. They are
transparent to the technology (they can only make sure
that IPv6 is transparent and help it to be consistent).

Now, there is another reason why I am interested in
this proposed RFC. IPv4 transition to IPv6 is the first
real life interoperability of IPvXs. There are still many
simple things to make accepted in here and elsewhere.
But if we want to proceed towards the continuity of the
digital ecosystem, we need to make IPvX interoperable
with many other systems (like Telephone, TV, Radio,
domotic, space, automation, etc). This means to make
the technology global.

But again you may think of a global technology as the
NGN (new generation network, everything under a
superIP, at layer 3 or 4) or as internetted technologies
which will cooperate at layer 7/8.

To end with this. You will note that the global unique
namespace by John Klensin's definition is the same
Domain Name must resolve to the same site.

How a sad world :-)
- no local emergency number
- no follow me
- no anycast
- no Dynamic DNS

.

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:10:59 +0000

>>>>> "J-F" == J-F C (Jefsey) Morfin <[email-masked]> writes:

    J-F> PS. In American as in other languages "global" means "from
    J-F> the whole globe". This is confusing because this is
    J-F> understood as: "universal, catholic" in American.  "all the
    J-F> parts of the globe" in French, English etc.

Let's kill this pointless debate on the meaning of "global" for once
and for all.

Here's the definition in Chamber's English Dictionary. That's a
British English dictionary, though it includes slang and usage from
the USA and other places where English is the national language.

	adj. global spherical; world-wide; affecting, or taking into
	consideration, the whole world or all peoples; comprehensive

Any difference you perceive between the British and American meanings
of "global" only exist inside your head.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:59:29 -0500

<hat=wg-co-chair>

Ok, that's enough.

This digression of the definition of "global", ICANN, linguistics,
what Jon Postel might have been thinking back in 1906, etcetera,
etcetera, while presumably of interest to at least one person on this
mailing list, is waaay out of scope for this WG, and as far as I can
tell has nothing to do with the working group last call of
draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt.

So, with all due respect, anybody who wants to continue this
discussion is welcome to do so, but find someplace else to do it, and
please leave the DNSOP WG mailing list out of it.

</hat>
.

---

From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:09:01 +0100

>of "global" only exist inside your head.

Thank you to make my point which is that it is better not to rise the
matter because it might be a subject for ... controversy.

I just tried to help editing a text, not to be entrapped into a debate,
and least of all in a dispute. Thanks to Pekka for listening so well
and for the point on TTO. It was very interesting. I will keep him posted
on what we may discuss in here on it.

jfc

PS. To be polite I will respond to Jim: his input was genuinely intereting.

Your quote ("all peoples", plural) actually confirms my understanding.
I do not say that to say I am right, but after having carfully looked into
it (I am not an American/English speaker, but I am bit litterary with
some mathematical stubborness). Please, compare with The American
Heritage ("of, relating to, or involving the entire earth"). Seems pretty
identical, if you do not see the mathematical difference between
"entire earth" and "whole world". What counts is not when deifinitions
say the same but when they differ. French will add the notion of
"Integrated". Computing will add the notion of going into something
more complete (a "global variable": when I say the Internet went global
in 84, I use that image).

Anyway, Jim, I am old enough not to care much about agressiveness.
Use the wording you like: centralized/distributed, uni/multilateral,
singular/plural, machine/people,etc. Diectionnary is not important, it only
helps understanding what are the brainware different images.

What are of interest are the two main technical (and much more)
newtork visions and their differences with ohers. And, in here, what
IPv6 may bring to merge them, and how we might poorly use it,
creating us problems rather than successes.

- It is not because you do not understand or agree with something it is
   necessarily stupid. Only good reason to dig into it.
- try my understanding when reviewing controverted network subjects.
   You may discover by your own synthesis/solutions become easier.

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:39:57 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:59:29 -0500, 
>>>>> Rob Austein <[email-masked]> said:

> draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt.

(Just in case) Of course not, and this has nothing to do with the WGLC
of draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt either, on which the first
response in this thread probably wanted to comment.

> please leave the DNSOP WG mailing list out of it.

Also, even for further discussion in the scope of the dnsop wg, please
change the subject (as Pekka did in his first response) so that it
specifies the correct draft name.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html