Subject: [DNSOP] My remarks at the mic in the DNSOP meeting the other day

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 03:06:05 +0200

Hi,

I wanted to follow up to the list to try again to make clear what I
said in the DNSOP meeting the other day.

In the first place, the point I was trying to make in the "business
model" remark is just this: some of the drafts trying to register
special-use names that Christian Grothoff talked about hive out of the
DNS uses of names that create a resolution system only in some special
network context.  So, just as local. marks something as to be looked
up only with mDNS, onion. and exit. both mark something as to be
looked up only under onion routing (or maybe, depending on your view,
only using Tor).  But others of these proposals, such as bit., mark
out a name space and associated protocol that competes with the DNS.
It is a fully parallel name resolution universe, applicable to
absolutely any network application.  My point was that the second
class of these basically puts us in the position of approving a
special-use registration that is effectively an attack on someone
else's business model (ICANN's and that of the various registries and
registrars).  I believe that draws the IETF into a political battle
for which it is unprepared, and that's really why I object to these
registrations.

In the second place, I only now (while checking the recording to make
sure I didn't say anything inconsistent with the above) saw Ted
Lemon's remarks in the chat.  In response, I don't see what the fact
of my being IAB chair has to do with any of this: the IAB chair (and
indeed the IAB) has no special power with respect to these
registrations.  Additionally, in any case I did not get up as IAB
chair and I should like to hope it was clear I was speaking only as an
individual (but in case it was not, let me emphasise now that I was).
While it is true that I have made the argument more than once, I
think it is a principled argument and given that these applications
continue to be under consideration I see nothing wrong with repeating
the arugment.  Finally, I don't believe I have ever accused people of
being bad actors on this and I should like very much a pointer to an
example of my saying that; but in any case, should I somehow ever have
said that let me be clear that I do not think _ad hominem_ arguments
are valid and I don't think "bad actor" would be a reason to reject an
application.  I am worried about the consequences for the IETF here,
not the moral state of the people who are proposing a registration

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:04:15 -0400

On Jul 25, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> But others of these proposals, such as bit., mark
> registrars).

The IETF shouldn’t be in the business of suppressing innovation or defending business models.   We all know that IETF participants sometimes do to this, but normally they pretend that they are doing so for technical reasons, and they do that because our culture tries to discourage such behavior, since it tends to work against the goal of technical excellence.

The reason I think it was inappropriate is not that I think the DNS needs to be replaced.   It does seem to be working, and I’m pretty happy with it personally, since it pays my bills.   But the IETF should not be trying to stifle people who think it is not working and want to try something different.   I suspect they will fail, but that’s not a reason for us, as a standards body, to stand in the way of them trying.   Even if they fail, we can learn from their failure, and that is something we should encourage.

I get “bad actor” from your characterization of such attempts as “attacks,” which is a term that clearly implies malfeasance.   The non-pejorative way to say the same thing is “competes with."

As to how this relates to you being IAB chair, the IAB chair is very influential in this particular discussion space.   You just replaced Russ, who was very active in working on internet governance issues; It’s my understanding that you have stepped into his shoes, and while I don’t agree with you on this particular point, I greatly appreciate your willingness to do so.

I don’t mean to suggest that you are abusing your authority.   Actually I encourage you to use your authority—that’s why it was given to you.   I think it’s fine for you to speak about this with your IAB chair hat on, and indeed I don’t think you can speak without your IAB chair hat about this topic.   The pretense that people in IETF leadership can somehow wear two hats is a bit thin: realistically, we aren’t that good at compartmentalization, nor should we be expected to be or assumed to be.

However, I think that you should consider whether the chair of the IAB should be quite so vehement in opposing such competition, and quite so pejorative in characterizing it.

---

From: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:32:26 +0200

On 26 Jul 2015, at 3:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> I wanted to follow up to the list to try again to make clear what I said in the DNSOP meeting the other day.
>
> In the first place, the point I was trying to make in the "business model" remark is just this: some of the drafts trying to register special-use names that Christian Grothoff talked about hive out of the DNS uses of names that create a resolution system only in some special network context.  So, just as local. marks something as to be looked up only with mDNS, onion. and exit. both mark something as to be looked up only under onion routing (or maybe, depending on your view, only using Tor).  But others of these proposals, such as bit., mark out a name space and associated protocol that competes with the DNS.
> It is a fully parallel name resolution universe, applicable to absolutely any network application.  My point was that the second class of these basically puts us in the position of approving a special-use registration that is effectively an attack on someone else's business model (ICANN's and that of the various registries and registrars).  I believe that draws the IETF into a political battle for which it is unprepared, and that's really why I object to these registrations.

I agree with this differentiation.

> In the second place, I only now (while checking the recording to make sure I didn't say anything inconsistent with the above) saw Ted Lemon's remarks in the chat.  In response, I don't see what the fact of my being IAB chair has to do with any of this: the IAB chair (and indeed the IAB) has no special power with respect to these
> registrations.  Additionally, in any case I did not get up as IAB chair and I should like to hope it was clear I was speaking only as an individual (but in case it was not, let me emphasise now that I was).
> While it is true that I have made the argument more than once, I think it is a principled argument and given that these applications continue to be under consideration I see nothing wrong with repeating the arugment.  Finally, I don't believe I have ever accused people of being bad actors on this and I should like very much a pointer to an example of my saying that; but in any case, should I somehow ever have said that let me be clear that I do not think _ad hominem_ arguments are valid and I don't think "bad actor" would be a reason to reject an application.  I am worried about the consequences for the IETF here, not the moral state of the people who are proposing a registration

1. I personally did not misunderstand you.

2. IAB do have a special role here as it is IAB that:

2.1. Is the party responsible for .ARPA

2.2. Is the party that have made statements like for example RFC 2826

I hope and take for granted IAB, and because of that that you WHEN you speak on behalf of IAB strongly protect these things. Unless IAB first change the situation by saying something else.

   Patrik

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:14:03 +0200

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:04:15PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> The IETF shouldn’t be in the business of suppressing innovation or defending business models.

I agree with this.  The problem in this case is not just that the IETF
would be acting to create a competition with someone's business model.
It's also that the IETF, many years ago, gave up oversight (to the
extent it ever had it) of the domain name system name space.  Moreover,
in that giving up, the IETF was not perfectly clear that there was a
difference between the DNS name space and the domain name space.
Indeed, making that distinction on this list, where people presumably
understand many of the technical details, has been rather difficult.
Making the distinction to the rest of the world will be yet harder.

So, I'm not attempting to defend a business model as such.  I'm
instead arguing that, if we act to create the competition we're
talking about, we endanger ourselves.  

If we could somehow be sure that everyone implicated (which includes,
I think, many of the policy people in the ICANN community) was clear
about the distinctions, issues, and challenges, I might at that point
begin to argue in favour of these registrations.  I think the use of
parts of the owner name to signal protocol use was a really bad idea,
but we've already done it so I think the arguments against it are
probably moot.

> I get “bad actor” from your characterization of such attempts as
> “attacks,” which is a term that clearly implies malfeasance.  The
> non-pejorative way to say the same thing is “competes with."

In that case, please consider the global replacement hereby accepted.
Even were the developers of (say) the GNU name system explicitly
intending to undermine someone's business model, I wouldn't regard
that as malfeasance.  I did not and do not intend to impugn anyone's
motives.
 
> I don’t mean to suggest that you are abusing your authority.
> Actually I encourage you to use your authority—that’s why it was
> given to you.  I think it’s fine for you to speak about this with
> your IAB chair hat on, and indeed I don’t think you can speak
> without your IAB chair hat about this topic.

If you're right about that, I think it's too bad, because it would
discourage people from volunteering to stand for the IAB or for IAB
chair or anything else if they could not also participate in
discussions.  The IAB has not taken a position on this topic except
for its "single root" document of several years ago (RFC 2826).  It
seems to me that that document is also not entirely clear about the
difference between the DNS name space and the domain name space, so
IMO there's work for the IAB to undertake here anyway.  But the IAB
hasn't decided to do that and I don't know whether it will.

Best regards,

A (for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Christian Grothoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 13:18:03 +0200

> talking about, we endanger ourselves.  

Given that Tor, GNUnet, I2P and NameCoin have all been developed outside
of the IETF, I find the idea that IETF is *creating* the competition
odd. The competition *exists*, and has in many cases existed for more
than a decade.  I'm rather sure none of them has a single RFC or WG
draft describing any significant part of their protocols at this point,
except mabye RFC 1984. So saying that IETF is *creating* the competition
is a mischaracterization.

What I keep suggesting is that at this time, the IETF should *document*
the existence of said competition. Nobody proposed obsoleting DNS and
standardizing GNS at this point ;-). We wrote them in support of RFC
2826, reading it as applicable to the domain name space and not just the
DNS name space --- which is in my mind the only technically desirable
interpretation).

Best regards,

Christian

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:00:20 -0400

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Andrew.   I think we both agree that we need more clarity about this distinction we’ve been talking about regarding the distinction between the DNS namespace and domain names as a separate concept.   I don’t entirely see the risk to the IETF that you are talking about with respect to ICANN.   However, I think that whatever the motivation, we should try to get clarity on that.   I thought your comment on that particular point during the DNSOP meeting was very helpful, and I hope that there is an opportunity to find some common ground and also improve the situation on that basis.

As for the two-hats comment, I can’t agree with you there.   Serving in IETF leadership is an amazing privilege, and it is a hard job (at least that was my experience).   Trying to engage in the sort of compartmentalization that the two-hat model implies is, in my experience, not possible, and it’s important not to have illusions about that.   Rather, we should trust the IETF participants who are not in leadership roles to help us stay on track, without beating each other up when we realize that we’ve painted a bit outside the lines.   Otherwise the leadership role becomes very isolating and stressful.   These roles are unpaid volunteer positions with no particularly clear job description, so behaving precisely correctly is just really unlikely.   FWIW, I think that your response here is exactly right, and just what I was looking for, so thank you for that.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:35:07 -0400

Hi,

Keeping in mind the exchange Ted and I had the other day, I want to
note first that I'm speaking for myself and that I'm really actually
in principle entirely in favour of people doing whatever they want on
their networks.  Again, my concern here is at least partly to do with
the IETF's interface to the rest of the world.

With that in hand,

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> than a decade.

it may be that I should use a word other than "creating".  Perhaps
"sanctioning" or something like that.  Anyway, there's an important
difference:

Suppose the IETF does nothing.  In that case, there really is a
straight competition, and a serious problem for ICANN, the protocol
community around the alternative resolution scheme, and potentially
the Internet in the event that ICANN delegates these names.

If the IETF makes a registration, however, then one of two things
happens.  On the one hand, ICANN might just accept the registration
and take these names out of contention in any future root expansion.
(Registrations in the special-use registry were off limits under the
existing Applicant Guide Book, IIRC.)  In that case, in these cases of
alternative globally-scoped resolution systems, the IETF is
effectively privileging the request of one such system (the
special-names ones) over those that ICANN might pick (that would go
through the ICANN process).  On the other hand, ICANN might decide
that the IETF's registration was illegitimate, and permit such a name
to be registered.  (I think this is unlikely, but if my crystal ball
were better I'm sure I'd be part of the idle rich by now; it's
certainly logically possible.)  Were this path to happen, there'd be a
real crisis about the management of the global domain name space.

So that to me is the difference between documenting the practices and
actually putting a registration in the special use registry.  I hope
this makes plainer what is animating my concern.

> DNS name space --- which is in my mind the only technically desirable

I do think this has all been useful, and I also appreciate your
patience and willingness to thrash this out in public in this rather
slow and painful process.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]