[35674] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathew Butler)
Wed Mar 14 15:45:12 2001
Message-ID: <F062E72E4BA2D4119F1700B0D03D205F3B84@mail.tonbu.com>
From: Mathew Butler <mbutler@tonbu.com>
To: 'Vadim Antonov' <avg@kotovnik.com>,
Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:01:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0ACB9.39802300"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0ACB9.39802300
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
The problem is, of course, that it's NOT human-to-human communication. It's
machine-to-machine communication, and human-to-machine communication, and
DNS was designed to create a mnemonic representation of a way to reach a
machine.
"Hey, tiger's down!"
"Hey, one nine two dot one six eight dot one oh three dot two five three's
down!"
(Even if you take an example with 192.168 being where ALL the addresses in
the network come from: "Hey, one oh three dot two five three's down!")
In order for the machine to be able to determine what to do, it must be
programmed by the humans that created it. In order for the machine to be
able to determine what to do in a situation that has more than one
possibly-correct resolution, it must be given a set of rules in order to
determine what needs to be done.
I will admit that it is possible (not plausible, but possible) for even an
email system to be programmed with enough intelligence to be able to deal
with the conflict. However, the key word is 'system' -- defined as "all
pieces in a computing environment that contribute to a given piece of data
being processed the way the humans that are using it desire it to be
processed." Which includes all mail servers (speaking SMTP), as well as all
mail clients (speaking SMTP, POP3, IMAP, whatever else), and name resolution
(DNS, /etc/hosts, NIS, whatever else), and even the underlying virtual
circuit technology (TCP/IPv[46]). The entire system must be programmed in a
way that is consistent with how the user wants it to work... and getting
even two sites to upgrade to a newer version of sendmail at the same time is
difficult at best. Much less to get two sites to change their DNS
configuration at the same time.
The point is: In order to do our jobs, we have to simplify these complex
systems we're responsible for as much as possible. At least with a
globally-shared root zone, we're removing THAT piece of complexity from the
equation so we can determine what needs to be done at a higher level.
(Am I lazy? Perhaps. But I'd rather be lazy than crazy.)
-Mat Butler
Speaking for himself, not for his company.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:06 PM
To: Geoff Huston
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Statements against new.net?
Of course, one may choose to treat RFC as a gospel, but to
me (and i hope to anyone interested in how cognition works
to the point of actually getting acquainted with the relevant
research) the attached passage sounds quite like a bunch of
random noise :) Mostly because it assumes that human-to-human
communication is a reasoned process, concerned with consistent
intepretation. In fact, most of what makes, for example, art
interesting is that it does not have a singular, well defined
interpretation.
--vadim
PS This one, i guess, is brought to you by the Society Against
De-Humanization Of Internet Users
<tongue firmly in cheek>
PPS Yes, I think any form which _restricts_ potential models of
communication is bad. Such as forcing communications to be
moderated by a singular hierarchical structure. This whole
thread won't be there in the first place if the scheme actually
worked well in the real world. Hierarchies do not scale and
cannot adequately tolerate internalized adversity.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Geoff Huston wrote:
> At 3/14/01 07:56 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
>
> >That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary
> >or desireable :) Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind,
> >but the case from the sociological point of view is far from
> >clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can
> >be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts
> >to enforce consistency.
>
> This assumption is explicitly addressed in the RFC - I quote:
>
> ------
> 1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set
>
> Effective communications between two parties requires two essential
> preconditions:
>
> - The existence of a common symbol set, and
>
> - The existence of a common semantic interpretation of these symbols.
> Failure to meet the first condition implies a failure to communicate at
> all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning of the
> communication is lost.
>
> In the case of a public communications system this condition of a common
> symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must be further
> strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a unique semantic
> interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows any party to initiate
a
> communication that can be received and understood by any other party. Such
> a condition rules out the ability to define a symbol within some bounded
> context. In such a case, once the communication moves out of the context
of
> interpretation in which it was defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes
> lost.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0ACB9.39802300
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Statements against new.net? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The problem is, of course, that it's NOT =
human-to-human communication. It's machine-to-machine =
communication, and human-to-machine communication, and DNS was designed =
to create a mnemonic representation of a way to reach a =
machine.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>"Hey, tiger's down!"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>"Hey, one nine two dot one six eight dot one oh =
three dot two five three's down!"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>(Even if you take an example with 192.168 being where =
ALL the addresses in the network come from: "Hey, one oh =
three dot two five three's down!")</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In order for the machine to be able to determine what =
to do, it must be programmed by the humans that created it. In =
order for the machine to be able to determine what to do in a situation =
that has more than one possibly-correct resolution, it must be given a =
set of rules in order to determine what needs to be done.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I will admit that it is possible (not plausible, but =
possible) for even an email system to be programmed with enough =
intelligence to be able to deal with the conflict. However, the =
key word is 'system' -- defined as "all pieces in a computing =
environment that contribute to a given piece of data being processed =
the way the humans that are using it desire it to be =
processed." Which includes all mail servers (speaking SMTP), =
as well as all mail clients (speaking SMTP, POP3, IMAP, whatever else), =
and name resolution (DNS, /etc/hosts, NIS, whatever else), and even the =
underlying virtual circuit technology (TCP/IPv[46]). The entire =
system must be programmed in a way that is consistent with how the user =
wants it to work... and getting even two sites to upgrade to a newer =
version of sendmail at the same time is difficult at best. Much =
less to get two sites to change their DNS configuration at the same =
time.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The point is: In order to do our jobs, we have to =
simplify these complex systems we're responsible for as much as =
possible. At least with a globally-shared root zone, we're =
removing THAT piece of complexity from the equation so we can determine =
what needs to be done at a higher level.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>(Am I lazy? Perhaps. But I'd rather be =
lazy than crazy.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Speaking for himself, not for his company.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Vadim Antonov [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:avg@kotovnik.com">mailto:avg@kotovnik.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:06 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Geoff Huston</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Of course, one may choose to treat RFC as a gospel, =
but to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>me (and i hope to anyone interested in how cognition =
works</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>to the point of actually getting acquainted with the =
relevant</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>research) the attached passage sounds quite like a =
bunch of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>random noise :) Mostly because it assumes that =
human-to-human</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>communication is a reasoned process, concerned with =
consistent</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>intepretation. In fact, most of what makes, =
for example, art</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>interesting is that it does not have a singular, =
well defined</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>interpretation.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--vadim</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PS This one, i guess, is brought to you by the =
Society Against</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> De-Humanization Of Internet =
Users</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> <tongue firmly in =
cheek></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PPS Yes, I think any form which _restricts_ potential =
models of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> communication is bad. Such =
as forcing communications to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> moderated by a singular =
hierarchical structure. This whole</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> thread won't be there in the =
first place if the scheme actually</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> worked well in the real =
world. Hierarchies do not scale and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> cannot adequately tolerate =
internalized adversity.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Geoff Huston wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> At 3/14/01 07:56 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >That is based on the assumption that =
consistency is necessary</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >or desireable :) Of course, it is =
dear to an engineer's mind,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >but the case from the sociological point of =
view is far from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes =
of human societies can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >be (at least indirectly) attributed to the =
misguided attempts</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >to enforce consistency.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This assumption is explicitly addressed in the =
RFC - I quote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Effective communications between two parties =
requires two essential </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> preconditions:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - The existence of a common =
symbol set, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - The existence of a common =
semantic interpretation of these symbols.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Failure to meet the first condition implies a =
failure to communicate at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> all, while failure to meet the second implies =
that the meaning of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> communication is lost.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> In the case of a public communications system =
this condition of a common </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> symbol set with a common semantic =
interpretation must be further </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> strengthened to that of a unique symbol set =
with a unique semantic </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> interpretation. This condition of uniqueness =
allows any party to initiate a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> communication that can be received and =
understood by any other party. Such </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a condition rules out the ability to define a =
symbol within some bounded </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> context. In such a case, once the communication =
moves out of the context of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> interpretation in which it was defined, the =
meaning of the symbol becomes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> lost.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0ACB9.39802300--
