Subject: Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:30:41 +0200

Thomas Gal writes:

> Well certainly the network controls in place in china are a good
> example of this. HOWEVER I'd say really it all boild down to power.

The path to power is paved with trampled freedoms.

> YES! Not to mention the plethora of engineers and geeks who know too
> much about what's going on and CAN complain. I'd say as more of our
> knowledge pervades society more people could understand the issues
> that bother some people.

It's a bit like the religious debates over which operating system is
best on the desktop.  The average consumer doesn't care, and just goes
with whatever comes installed on the machine.  Only the geeks argue
endlessly about supposed advantages and disadvantages to particular
operating systems, none of which actually amount to a hill of beans
for serious users (those who use computers to get things done, as
opposed to geeks who spend their lives tweaking machines but never
actually use them for anything important).

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Christian de Larrinaga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:42:22 +0100

Is it not the case that if you distribute an unique namespace (rather  
than use a tree for DNS) you will end up swapping a root based DNS  
architecture for some form of  PKI to authenticate the distributed  
namespace as meeting policy and that this also needs a structure to  
guarantee authenticity and to achieve this universally we would end  
up with some similar looking policy control issues to determine how  
to manage the infrastructure so that it is safe?

Of course having decided on the operational policy parameters it  
would be useful to be able to automate the operations. But surely the  
same could apply to IANA functions? It's the policy that is tough and  
takes thought.

Incidentally I agree that there is need of identifiers that users can  
deploy that goes into the data infrastructure rather than simply the  
underlying device (or pseudo device) infrastructure addressed by DNS.  
But generally ideas along these lines that I've seen tend to  
piggyback with or around the DNS rather than replace it. -

Christian de Larrinaga
[email-masked]

On 30 Sep 2005, at 22:15, Michael Mealling wrote:

> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>
>> In message <[email-masked]>, Michael Mealling  
>> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>>
>>> Reexamine the premises....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am -- these are my premises.  I lived far too long in the uucp  
>> world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble.
>>
>>
>
> Again you're talking about mail routing and addressing mechanisms  
> when the people that use DNS in their web browser are looking for a  
> smart search interface that understands better what they're after  
> and why. Why do those two applications have to use the same  
> addressing scheme? Many of the political problems with DNS have  
> nothing to do with routing email and have everything to do with the  
> fact that its what your grandmother is using as an interface.
>
>
>> Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and  
>> that's what I do for a living.
>>
>
> Sure.... security requires a level of exactness that you shouldn't  
> burden the user with or else he won't use the system....
>
>
>> I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in  
>> the trademark sphere.  That doesn't mean that its other premises  
>> are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique  
>> results besides treees.
>>
>>
>
> And what I'm suggesting is that uniqueness is a requirement of  
> networks and system, not people. The issues the UN has with the way  
> DNS is run have to do with the fact that you're trying to apply a  
> requirement of the network to society and that creates problems.  
> IMHO, we should look at building a system that works the way people  
> use identifiers and identity and then get that to work with the  
> existing network we have.
>
> -MM
>
> -- 
> Michael Mealling                  Masten Space Systems, Inc.
> VP Business Development                       473 Sapena Ct.
> Office: +1-678-581-9656                            Suite 23
> Cell: +1-678-640-6884                 Santa Clara, CA 95054
>                 http://masten-space.com/
>
>
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:19:55 +0200

--On fredag, september 30, 2005 17:58:16 -0400 Michael Mealling 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for
> your grandmother or your favorite polititicain

I believe we tried. Many times. We were roundly ignored.

> and instead we're going to
> do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are
> actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed....

We tried that too (starting with X.500, going on with whois++, and on 
through a dozen more proposals that did not get even that much traction.

> And maybe that work doesn't belong here....

.... in which case "we're going to do something" isn't relevant, and it 
translates to "we're sitting back and hoping someone will do something". 
Which isn't all that far from what we've been doing for the last year or 
five.