[35598] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Havard Eidnes)
Tue Mar 13 20:23:35 2001
To: owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Havard Eidnes <he@nordu.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:34:25 -0800"
<200103132034.MAA26370@irkutsk.delong.sj.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20010313234757D.he@runit.no>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:47:57 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political". Upon
> > careful re-reading it boils down to:
> >
> > If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
> >
> > If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on
> > which root they ask.
> >
> > How is this political?
>
> It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements
> and says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should
> use one root."
I disagree. If you accept the premise of the RFC, which is that
the goal is to be able to communicate effectively, then this is a
natural consequence of the first two statements, as explained in
the RFC.
> It becomes completely political when it expands that to
> encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root.
> Thou shall have no other root before me."
Chapter and verse, please. You must be reading something I don't; I
can't find any statements in there which says this.
Regards,
- H=E5vard
