https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy. This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators. Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal. There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs. On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces.
Sorry for the late reply, I have a new computer and need to set my filters better, as this message ended up in the spam folder. I am not a technical guru, so I am asking the question to the ones who know. Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn? The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks. If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right? Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF? Personally, I have serious doubts. But it would be good to be kept informed of the developments. Cheers, Roberto -----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Lutz Donnerhacke Inviato: martedì 19 giugno 2012 14:57 A: At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [At-Large] China is going to divide the DNS https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy. This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators. Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal. There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs. On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Roberto, proposals for alternate/split roots are commonplace. However, it is the first time that an apparently State-sponsored organization is proposing such a draft. The general mood in IETF is that this proposal has very little chance of passing the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The question then lies into "why was this proposed", and my personal take on this, already shared on ISOC discussion lists, is that the author is looking at ticking the box: "Tried submitting changes through IETF. Did not work. Replace IETF with another organization." Kind regards, Olivier On 30/06/2012 18:59, Roberto Gaetano wrote :
Sorry for the late reply, I have a new computer and need to set my filters better, as this message ended up in the spam folder. I am not a technical guru, so I am asking the question to the ones who know. Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn? The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks. If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right? Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF? Personally, I have serious doubts. But it would be good to be kept informed of the developments. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Lutz Donnerhacke Inviato: martedì 19 giugno 2012 14:57 A: At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [At-Large] China is going to divide the DNS
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns
Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy.
This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators.
Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal.
There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs.
On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Roberto Gaetano
Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn?
Correct.
The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks.
They respect the Internet standardization proceess (there is no "official" status at the IETF. There are documented practices and proposed standards. And a general problem of commercial/political bias stated by the IAB in its RFC 3869, I fear we are encountering here.
If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right?
The ISP in China and the i-DNs plug-in outside of China. This is NOT an alternative root but the use of additional stubs as far as I know.
Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF?
The term "support" is inappropriate because as you know voting has no influence at IETF, only rough consensus and running code are considered. This Draft documents a problem and a stable common response of the largest existing Internet community. This practice is in operation for years and does not disturb the DNS operations as they are currently run. These are facts they state. What Chinese do, is actually to prepare themselves to receive and study comments. As per IETF practices. 2012/7/1, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
proposals for alternate/split roots are commonplace.
Sorry, this is not a proposal. This is an experienced problem and a solution brought to it
However, it is the first time that an apparently State-sponsored organization is proposing such a draft.
The IETF is a "loosely self-organized group of people who contribute to the engineering and evolution of Internet technologies". IETF wise the organization someone belongs to is irrelevant. There are three IETF fellows documenting an existing process and calling for comments before others replicate it.
The general mood in IETF is that this proposal has very little chance of passing the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).
The question is to know if the documented solution is the best one for similar needs.If some think it is not, they can create an IETF/WG with the charter of addressing the quoted quasi impossibility. The question then lies into "why was this proposed", and my personal take on this, already shared on ISOC discussion lists, is that the author is looking at ticking the box: "Tried submitting changes through IETF. I am afraid this is not the case and offensing. It presumes that these IETF Chinese fellows are disloyal to the IETF. So far, they check if the IETF know or want to study a better (RFC 3935) way to address the need. As far as I evaluate the I_D, it identifies a new DNS problem as exemplified in the ICANN case. However, I observe that the I_D only considers the Chinese case (difficulties and solution) within - the ICANN management framework, - the current use of the DNS - the sole Internet technology. IMHO this is too specific a situation.
Did not work. Replace IETF with another organization."
Replacing the IETF with another organization would only be needed if the IETF was not able to bring an adequate response. I have experimented such a situation. The IETF procedure is to appeal to the IESG and possibly escalate to the IAB. The result will be an IETF position on the matter: - either: "this problem is in our area of responsibility, we are able to address it, and we address it." - either: "this problem is in our area of responsibility but, sorry, we are not able to address it. Please proceed with our help and blessing with a replacing SDO". - or: "this problem is not in our area of responsibility, however it also indirectly concerns us, so please proceed and let liaise. The later response is the one I received in the Internet+.case; what results in my present I_D on the emergence of the IUTF as a whole digital ecoystem multitechnology convergence oriented TF, structurally liaising with the IETF. This simply results of the growth and technical progress of the Internet. jfc
Dear All, To be precise the RFP was submitted by:- - Yuping Diao - Guangdong Commercial College - China Telecom - Ming Liao - China Mobile To see the exact RFP, visit: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 Kind Regards, On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Roberto,
proposals for alternate/split roots are commonplace. However, it is the first time that an apparently State-sponsored organization is proposing such a draft. The general mood in IETF is that this proposal has very little chance of passing the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The question then lies into "why was this proposed", and my personal take on this, already shared on ISOC discussion lists, is that the author is looking at ticking the box: "Tried submitting changes through IETF. Did not work. Replace IETF with another organization."
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 30/06/2012 18:59, Roberto Gaetano wrote :
Sorry for the late reply, I have a new computer and need to set my filters better, as this message ended up in the spam folder. I am not a technical guru, so I am asking the question to the ones who know. Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn? The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks. If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right? Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF? Personally, I have serious doubts. But it would be good to be kept informed of the developments. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Lutz Donnerhacke Inviato: martedì 19 giugno 2012 14:57 A: At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [At-Large] China is going to divide the DNS
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns
Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy.
This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators.
Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal.
There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs.
On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851
an RFP? is there such a request related to the I-D? the URL you give points at the AIP internet draft not an RFP.
No, it's just an Internet draft. As others have noted, there is no chance this would ever be approved as an RFC, so it's sort of mystifying why they submitted it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Yup, it is a draft that hardly will make it to a RFC. -J On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 30 Jun 2012, at 22:27, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
To be precise the RFP was submitted by:-
an RFP? is there such a request related to the I-D? the URL you give points at the AIP internet draft not an RFP.
avri
Roberto, I would suggest whether this is something that might proceed to a draft standard will likely depend on whether it scales globally, has at least two independent running code implementations, and is widely deployed. I would also hope that the consistency of user experience is taken into account so the settings for my services and sites in my DNS as standardised remain published as I publish them and available transparently and globally to users and not mucked about with by "their" DNS. Best Christian de Larrinaga On 30 Jun 2012, at 17:59, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, I have a new computer and need to set my filters better, as this message ended up in the spam folder. I am not a technical guru, so I am asking the question to the ones who know. Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn? The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks. If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right? Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF? Personally, I have serious doubts. But it would be good to be kept informed of the developments. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Lutz Donnerhacke Inviato: martedì 19 giugno 2012 14:57 A: At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [At-Large] China is going to divide the DNS
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns
Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy.
This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators.
Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal.
There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs.
On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The real issue of that Internet Draft is not based in technology, rather it is based in politics. As many have pointed out, there is zero chance that the IETF process will allow this draft to grow to any sort of internet standard status. But the IETF is not the last word - it never really was. Just look a the of network services as shown by IANA. It shows something on the order of 15,000 network services many of which were done outside of the context of the IETF - http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-por... There is no technical doubt that parallel, competing DNS roots could be established. There are many who argue that that would cause a split in the internet name space. It could. But that is a possible outcome, not a necessary outcome. Personally I look at the issue not as one of singularity or multiplicity of DNS roots but rather as one of consistency. Everyone, I hope, has seen the Monty Python tobacconist sketch - more often called the Hungarian Phrase Book sketch in which a person has a Hungarian-to-English phrase book that horribly mistranslates things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbflkF_1zY Think of DNS roots as competing phrase books. A poor DNS root such as shown in the sketch might be funny, but it would make its users angry and would have minimal commercial prospects and, if it survived at all, it would tend to evolve into a special niche. Think of DNS roots as facing the same kind of pressure - if they are inconsistent, i.e. if they surprise their users, then those users (or their ISPs) will vote with their feet and choose a less surprising DNS root. Now, there is the argument of misrepresentation - it is a valid argument. But there are existing mountains of laws and regulations in every country that can be brought to bear on people (natural or corporate) that engage in fraudulent representations. It may be harder than one likes to turn an accusation into a punishment, but due process is neither always efficient nor always quick. And there is a flaw in the internet architecture - which is the lack of universal mutual identification and authentication. We tend to use the internet as if we we though that every time we utter a domain name we get perfect answers. Anybody who utters "google.com" in a web browser while traveling learns that DNS names lack geographic uniformity. And we all know that DNS names lack temporal uniformity because we have all encountered DNS names that have been re-purposed. Consequently that flaw in the internet architecture contributes to this belief that domain names are somehow perfect master keys. We would be silly to pick up a telephone, tap out a number we believe to be that of our doctor and as soon as someone - anyone - answers we blurt out our deepest secrets. We know better - it could be a wrong number or someone else may have picked up. But on the internet we do not know better, we blurt out like that. So the problem with arguments about misleading data from competing roots are based more on a lack of a universally deployed internet layer to do consistent identification and authentication than they are based on DNS itself. My own sense is that if we allow competing roots we would not have needed ICANN's TLD processes; new TLDs could have grown in much the same way that new products aspire to shelf space in stores. Those TLD products that got user acceptance would survive and those that didn't would fail - that is true "bottom up" consensus rather than the rather forced system we see in ICANN. For more on that idea see http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html Back to the internet draft: In my business (testing of internet protocols for robustness) I see a lot of corporate energy to create internet drafts in order to gain ability to claim "we ware working within the IETF" while moving forward on an idea no matter whether the IETF goes along or not. I suspect that the authors of this draft are serious technologists who are earnest about their ideas and that the ideas themselves are worthy of examination and consideration. But the larger political message is that the mantra of a singular, rigidly catholic DNS is starting to evolve into a message that elides the rigid hierarchy from exactly one provider to a message that envisions something more like separate and equal hierarchies that are sufficiently consistent with one another that users will not be discomforted, at least not any more than they are today by client geo-IP based name resolution. --karl--
participants (10)
-
Avri Doria -
cdel.firsthand.net -
JFC Morfin -
John R. Levine -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro