Subject: Re: Trees have one root

From: "Richard J. Sexton Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:18:03 -0400 (EDT)

At 08:50 AM 7/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>> > Keith Moore <[email-masked]>:
>> > >"alternate DNS roots" aren't part of DNS.  if someone wants to propose
>> > >a URN based on a DNS-like system with its own root zone, they're free
>> > >to do so and see if they can get support for it.   For that matter if
>> > >someone wants to propose a URN based on some other naming system that
>> > >doesn't look like DNS they're free to do that also.
>> > >
>> > >But trying to make "alternate DNS roots" fit into a DNS URI scheme is
>> > >like trying to make OIDs or some other naming scheme fit into a DNS
>> > >URI scheme.   We don't need to do that - there's a separate scheme for
>> > >OIDs.  And trying to do so would make DNS URIs far more complex than
>> > >they need to be -  for no real benefit.  For instance, how do you
>> > >assign names to the alternate roots?
>> >
>> > By specifying the root name as a prefix?
>>
>> great.  then people can start arguing about who gets to maintain the
>> set of names for ... er...  what were formally known as roots.
>However, back in the real world, the existing unique root works just fine.

Sure, and ICANN is a good thing (tm)

And ketchup is a vegetable.

This aint rocket science, and keeping track of namesystems is
about as complicated as keeping track of port numbers.

--

 /"\  ASCII RIBBON      / [email-masked] [email-masked]
 \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
  X   HTML MAIL       / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org
 / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"This aint rocket science, and keeping track of namesystems is
about as complicated as keeping track of port numbers."

Except for the minor consumer fraud that "oh, by the way you can only use
certain ISPs and you have to configure your DNS settings for alternate TLD
foo to work." [This fits really nicely on a business card].

And this arrogant thing about: "...the official roots should just list all
the info from our alternate roots so that everything will work
seamlessly." Have your cake and eat it too.

Richard, I have a strong desire to add a new area code in the US. I was
thinking of calling it "370" which is "OLE" upside down, but perhaps 370
is already taken, I'll have to check. Anyway, it would work just like any
other area code of course (apart from the local access number 27 digit PIN
and such to make it work), but I think it would be really neat.

Call 1-800-OLE-OLE-NOW

I like it already, and I don't see why I should not be allowed to set this
up just like that.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:23:32 -0700

> about as complicated as keeping track of port numbers.

I thought the port numbers that needed to be globally unique were allocated
by a central authority.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:43:45 -0400

> I thought the port numbers that needed to be globally unique were allocated

@begin(joke)
That's just what the bureaucrats in control *want* you to think.
There are other central authorities for port numbers.  You can pick 
whatever authority's list of port numbers you want to use.  All you 
have to do is replace your /etc/services file.  

MY port number authority uses port 80 for DNS.  That way ANY WEB SERVER
can be used as a DNS server allowing autocratic zone administrators
to be COMPLETELY BYPASSED!!!!  (modulo slight protocol incompatibilities
which will be fixed as soon as they upgrade all web browsers to support 
downloading web pages using RFC 1035 - which of course they will do because
to do otherwise would be to pretend that other port number authorities do  
not exist!!!).  Also, in MY port numbering system HTTP runs over port 25  
in order to BLOCK COOKIES!!!   LDAP runs over port 65537 because nobody 
should be using LDAP anyway.  And IP runs over port 25 thus allowing
direct routing of IP packets to ANYONE WHO HAS AN EMAIL ADDRESS!!!!!

Any fool can use his own port number list --- and many already have!!!!
@end(joke)

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:34:04 -0700

This is just plain silly;-)...  No one in the ORSC effort says 
anything like the words you are trying to put in our mouths.

Such as: "oh, by the way you can only use certain ISPs and you have 
to configure your DNS settings for alternate TLD foo to work."

This "discussion" would go much better for you all if you will allow 
us to say for ourselves what we want to say, and not put your 
misbegotten words in our mouths.   Your quote marks are simply false.

What we say is very simple:  If you want to see the Whole Internet, 
you are welcome do so by pointing your DNS resolver at our ORSC root 
servers, which just happen to include all of the ICANNic TLDs, plus 
our ORSC TLDs, (except for one small TLD which was created 
deliberately by ICANN to create a conflict which we cannot resolve 
because ICANN refuses to so much as recognize us.  They simply act as 
though we do not exist.

This is fine by us, as it is ICANN that is fouling its own nest, at 
its own pleasure.  We hope they are enjoying the results.

Or you can stay with access to the limited ICANNic Internet available 
to you by using the ICANNic roots.  It is your free choice to make.

If it means that you have to change ISPs because your current ISP 
chooses to prohibit your interactions with the ORSC portion of Whole 
Internet, this only points out that among other things, it really is 
your choice, and not someone else's choice to make.

So, please,  make your choice for yourself and please allow others to 
make their choice for themselves.

Who died and made you King of the Internet?

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:49:14 -0700

I have no problem believing that this is how you think;-)...

But I also note that lots of people think lots of things that are not true,
like the Flat Earth Society and such.

Sometimes it is even fun to think as you do, and I do not begrudge 
your or anyone else from holding such beliefs, but this does not hold 
any water when it comes time for me to make my own personal decision, 
disregarding what you might think.

When I have a problem with the ORSC root (which I have not yet had) I 
might rethink my choices, or comment to the ORSC coordinators to seek 
a remedy.

So, for now my choice is to simply see the Whole Internet;-)...

Enjoy Your Internet;-)...\Stef

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:12:06 -0700

Stef,

>> I thought the port numbers that needed to be globally unique were allocated
...
> like the Flat Earth Society and such.

You appear to be denying the existence of the IANA.  Not very polite.

> Sometimes it is even fun to think as you do,

I was not aware that you could read minds.

> When I have a problem with the ORSC root (which I have not yet had)

Congratulations on resolving the conflict between ICANN's .biz and the
"original" .biz.  You should issue a press release.

Rgds,
-drc