[33879] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft spokesperson blames ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Duncan)
Wed Jan 24 22:22:11 2001
Message-Id: <200101250230.VAA06726@rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com>
From: Jim Duncan <jnduncan@cisco.com>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
of "24 Jan 2001 11:40:15 PST." <20010124194015.15524.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:33 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean Donelan writes:
> Microsoft appears to be blaming ICANN for the failure with Microft's
> domain name servers (all located at the same place at Microsoft).
>
> Microsoft has yet to pin down the cause of the DNS error. "It can
> be a system or human error, but somebody could also have done this
> intentionally," De Jonge said. "We don't manage the DNS ourselves,
> it is a system controlled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) with worldwide replicas."
>
> http://www.idg.net/ic_386962_1793_1-1681.html
I have read that article many, many time today, trying to see how you
came to that conclusion and I don't get it. To reach that conclusion,
you've clearly quoted them out of the context of the larger article.
Even to reach that conclusion from the small part you quoted requires a
logical leap that is inappropriate, if not outright incorrect.
I personally worked on that case for nearly eight hours today, right up
until the resolution. I can tell you it was a learning experience for
everyone involved. There were clearly some mistakes made, but it is
also the case that there were a _lot_ of different things going on that
contributed to the problem or complicated its resolution.
However, jumping to such a conclusion is out of line, especially with
the clout and respect you have on this mailing list. It has inflamed
the responses of dozens of list members who want nothing more than to
smack back at Microsoft, regardless of the truth in their statements.
Microsoft did *not* blame ICANN in that article. I wouldn't put it past
a spokesperson, Microsoft or otherwise, to make that mistake, but that
clearly wasn't the case here. Let's not complicate the issue by making
the same mistakes in our own comments.
Thanks.
Jim
--
Jim Duncan, Product Security Incident Manager, Cisco Systems, Inc.
<http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/sec_incident_response.shtml>
E-mail: <jnduncan@cisco.com> Phone(Direct/FAX): +1 919 392 6209
