[35620] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Conrad)
Wed Mar 14 01:09:32 2001
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010313190136.032c8a68@localhost>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:35:22 -0800
To: "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat@tmcs.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
From: "David R. Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEAPCCAA.mikebat@tmcs.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 04:14 PM 3/13/2001 -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> > That one root must be supported by a set
> ^zone
> > of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
> > authority.
>Here is where I disagree.
...
>I still say it's a self-serving statement with political motivations, and I
>hope I have adequately explained why I think that.
One could argue that "single naming authority" does not necessarily imply
that a single body is making the decisions of what is or is not in the root
zone. The use of a single body is (arguably) the _easiest_ solution to the
root zone edit control problem, not necessarily the best
solution. Clearly, a model in which multiple cooperative bodies manage the
editing of the root zone is workable -- there are several empirical proofs
of such. However, it can be argued that in such a model, the cooperative
is the "unique naming authority".
The issue isn't really about this however. New.Net is not a part of a
cooperative. They are a commercial company deciding on their own what is
or is not a good top level domain -- they are asserting (with the help of
@Home, Earthlink, mp3.com, etc.) that they are the unique naming
authority. I, for one, do not believe that this is appropriate or desirable.
Rgds,
-drc
