From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #80 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 11 2000 Volume 01 : Number 080 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:22:54 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven >There are more documents out there. The newdom@ar.com archive appears to >have been overwritten by more recent messages, so I can't point you there >right now. Also, in a personal visit to IANA, I argued against charging for >pre-sales but got veto'd by Bill Manning (much to Chris Ambler's >amusement). Go figure. This, of course, is the permission that Crocker and Crispin so adamantly insist was never given, and Walsh so adamantly insists was given without authority to do so. Ultimately, ICANN's decisions will take into account IANA's previous actions, and ICANN's liability (or lack thereof) for them. There's no use arguing them here (nor do I wish to do so any longer), they'll either make a difference or they won't. I, for one, am content to wait and see. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:29:27 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal At 03:17 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >CORE has *no* presold TLDs. How do you explain the following *FUNCTIONAL* DNS records (maybe DNS for a CORE registry TLD server being carried by an alternate root?): [simon@vaio simon]$ date Tue Apr 11 04:32:07 GMT 2000 [simon@viao simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 Server: vaio.higgs.net Address: 204.80.101.90 Name: berk.serv.nic.info Address: 208.1.127.5 [simon@vaio simon]$ Or can I have "nic.info" if no-one else is really using it? ;-p Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:48:01 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs This is a naive question. I know next to nothing of the history on this. What difference does it make if CORE, Chris Ambler, Paul Garin, or anyone else ever wanted to create an alternative root system or some new TLD that wasn't approved by the establishment? Even if someone thought it was a bad idea, wouldn't that be a sign of risk taking, innovation, or spunk? Or should it be treated as some criminal act that has to be punished? Jamie ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:56:42 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 07:38 PM 4/10/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: Unfortunately, this whole thread goes against the introduction of specialized TLDs which may be required to reserve specific names for specific uses. I can think of several examples which would pre-load DNS. Just look at one of CORE's pre-existing examples: nic.info There are plenty of others. > > Just to bring closure to this, I'm 100% with Kent's recommendation for > > a round-robinning mechanism, or some other fairness mechanism, being > > instantiated to throttle the flood of potentially conflicting registrations > > from various registrars when the new TLDs go live. > > > > Now, someone please buy me a drink. I just agreed with Kent, and I > > need one. > > > > -- > > Mark C. Langston > > mark@bitshift.org > > Systems & Network Admin > > San Jose, CA > >I am also in complete agreement that no previous registrations in any new >TLD that gets added to the legacy roots should be grandfathered in. >The only mechanism that seems fair would be a round-robin mechanism to flush >the queues at point 0 of when the TLD goes live. Whichever way it's done, >once the name of a new TLD is announced, there WILL be pressure on the >registrars (or the companies below the legal registrar) to build up waiting >lists, and most certainly somewhere someone WILL accept "queue-building" or >"preregistrations" or whatever you want to call it. > >There's nothing stopping me from writing a script that interfaces to a >registrars' web-based registration page or generates email forms and >bombarding the said registrar which in turn will bombard the registry. Which >means that if no registrar does it upfront, then the activity will exist and >be underground. > >Declaring illegal what is unenforceable is not worth the hassle. > >Do I get a drink too? > >Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:18:08 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 08:58 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 08:01 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >>The POC made a collective policy decision ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4 >>"There have been some suggestions that POC ban registrars from taking >>"pre-registrations". After carefully considering this, POC decided not to >>ban pre-registrations as it could not prevent other third parties >>(non-CORE members) from queuing registrations and submitting them through >>a CORE registrar. And indeed, there are many companies doing exactly this." Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:32:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 James Love wrote: > This is a naive question. I know next to nothing of the history on > this. What difference does it make if CORE, Chris Ambler, Paul Garin, > or anyone else ever wanted to create an alternative root system or some > new TLD that wasn't approved by the establishment? Even if someone > thought it was a bad idea, wouldn't that be a sign of risk taking, > innovation, or spunk? Or should it be treated as some criminal act that > has to be punished? What they do in their own nameservers is their business. The issue is if the domains they sold under those conditions should have any standing in the legitimate process. What they have in their own nameservers doesn't really matter, no one is seeking to criminalize that. It is the presumption that they have any right in the established namespace as a result of them deciding to go off and do their thing without any legitimate established authority. So while we do not criminalize their acts, we also do not believe they should be recognized as having any official standing of any sort whatsoever. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48rjh8zLmV94Pz+IRAr+iAKD6/Sp6tQtxPhHxnL7MYBuvQ2f7BACbBqyp L+D3nfH4mrHgWHQjX0EE26k= =v0bW - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:45:39 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs William, you say "we." Who is "we?" - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:32 PM To: James Love Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 James Love wrote: > This is a naive question. I know next to nothing of the history on > this. What difference does it make if CORE, Chris Ambler, Paul Garin, > or anyone else ever wanted to create an alternative root system or some > new TLD that wasn't approved by the establishment? Even if someone > thought it was a bad idea, wouldn't that be a sign of risk taking, > innovation, or spunk? Or should it be treated as some criminal act that > has to be punished? What they do in their own nameservers is their business. The issue is if the domains they sold under those conditions should have any standing in the legitimate process. What they have in their own nameservers doesn't really matter, no one is seeking to criminalize that. It is the presumption that they have any right in the established namespace as a result of them deciding to go off and do their thing without any legitimate established authority. So while we do not criminalize their acts, we also do not believe they should be recognized as having any official standing of any sort whatsoever. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48rjh8zLmV94Pz+IRAr+iAKD6/Sp6tQtxPhHxnL7MYBuvQ2f7BACbBqyp L+D3nfH4mrHgWHQjX0EE26k= =v0bW - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:41:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > William, you say "we." Who is "we?" The people who are saying that IOD/CORE and their preregistrations should not have any standing. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48rsU8zLmV94Pz+IRAl69AJ4iXkWOHGz0RW8DfL4j0OWxYMDL3gCfdPcX lTa1xi0v/7+sLCLF6sB0DKc= =/+qn - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:43:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > The Postel draft applicants were given "working documents" from IANA such > as this one: > pre-sales but got veto'd by Bill Manning (much to Chris Ambler's > amusement). Go figure. Too bad they lacked the authority to bind any authority for said gTLDs. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48ruS8zLmV94Pz+IRAiGZAJ0ZGcJey0+AZSLx6/+4XWj/1a4G3QCg9ST3 acGAeQ9n2a3LyOy46XXo09s= =Ot4D - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:46:33 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 08:53 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >Getting difficult to wade through the mass of mis-information. Still, one >does wish to keep matters clear, for the record: No one cares about your opinion. If you want to post something relevant "for the record", at least have the decency to back it up with an accurate URL (per request by DNSO moderators). If you can't do that, please don't bother wasting everyone else's bandwidth with gibberish. Best Regards, Simon - -- "Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:54:19 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] The Issues At Hand I see, thank you. In that case, we also believe that companies such as IOD and CORE, who set up infrastructure under the then-current policies and procedures are, if nothing else, victims of history, and they (nor their customers) should not be penalized as a result. While William's point may be valid, the compromise would be to freeze new registrations in these zones pending addition to the root. Furthermore, with identification of the issue, it should be noted that no new companies which are creating infrastructure in anticipation of ICANN opening up competition should be taking registrations in their zones at this time. The issue of specialized zones that come pre-populated, and the possibility of private zones that are currently populated (for example, .ATT or .MCI or .IBM) should be considered as well. Additionally, in the interest of fairness (which this proposal seems to take as its reason), I must reiterate my earlier proposal that any company which participated in the testbed for registrars should not participate in the testbed for registries, unless there are not enough applicants to fill the registry testbed. To exclude companies that have had no participation in favour of companies that were given initial registrar testbed status would be unfair, at best. Unless, of course, these issues are outside the scope of this working group, in which case the issue should be dropped. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:42 PM To: Christopher Ambler Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; James Love Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > William, you say "we." Who is "we?" The people who are saying that IOD/CORE and their preregistrations should not have any standing. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48rsU8zLmV94Pz+IRAl69AJ4iXkWOHGz0RW8DfL4j0OWxYMDL3gCfdPcX lTa1xi0v/7+sLCLF6sB0DKc= =/+qn - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:52:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: [wg-c] RE: The Issues At Hand - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > While William's point may be valid, the compromise would be > to freeze new registrations in these zones pending addition > to the root. Furthermore, with identification of the issue, A decision to freeze registrations in IOD's private TLD is purely IOD's decision, and has no bearing on anything in this process, nor does it come under anything this Workgroup needs to address. But freezing registrations does not resolve the issue of the registrations you have already process, and if they should have any standing. Even with a freeze on any new ones, it doesn't give any weight to them having any rights in the new process we are developing here. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE48r2P8zLmV94Pz+IRAqUdAJ9cqqXV1cIzQq6+k6SLFIsdxurEaQCg9v7C HmAWVQ4L2YmEPj+RqNdMGaA= =DjAM - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:58:23 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal Let's see, Simon: You do a query on your own DNS server and get a hit on .info. Somehow that is supposed to prove something about CORE? Perhaps you would care to engage in some careful, documented, step-by-step pedagogy, for those of us failing to see whatever it is that you think you have proved? At 09:29 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >At 03:17 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >>CORE has *no* presold TLDs. > >How do you explain the following *FUNCTIONAL* DNS records (maybe DNS for a >CORE registry TLD server being carried by an alternate root?): > >[simon@vaio simon]$ date >Tue Apr 11 04:32:07 GMT 2000 >[simon@viao simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 >Server: vaio.higgs.net >Address: 204.80.101.90 > >Name: berk.serv.nic.info >Address: 208.1.127.5 And... At 09:11 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >At 02:03 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >>Nope. They were never reachable at all. CORE never set up alternate >>roots (except for internal testing purposes); and it never sold >>registrations in any alternate roots. > >Not true. A deal was cut by John Gilmore a few years ago (Feb 1998) to >carry the 5 undisputed TLDs in the ORSC root because CORE had no test >infrastructure: Gosh, Simon. You would not, by any small chance, have some additional documentation of this tidbit would you? That is, how does one independently verify that CORE worked with ORSC and used the ORSC independent (non-IANA) root? >> > if people want to sell SLDs within them, fine. >>CORE has *never* done that. > >The POC specifically *ALLOWED* pre-sales (a decision not to ban is an >acceptance of a practice, if not an endorsement): By that logic, your choosing not to go out and patrol the streets for criminals makes you responsible for all the crimes of those bad folk. Shame on you! Really, Simon, a remedial course in basic logic is called for, d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:48:21 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs At 12:48 AM 4/11/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >or anyone else ever wanted to create an alternative root system or some >new TLD that wasn't approved by the establishment? Even if someone >thought it was a bad idea, wouldn't that be a sign of risk taking, >innovation, or spunk? Or should it be treated as some criminal act that >has to be punished? The crux of one line of debate is the degree of support claimed and/or present, from "the establishment". However, your question is exactly right, in the current context. The answer is that prior acts should be entirely ignored. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:01:08 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 10:43 PM 4/10/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 11-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > > > The Postel draft applicants were given "working documents" from IANA such > > as this one: > > > pre-sales but got veto'd by Bill Manning (much to Chris Ambler's > > amusement). Go figure. > >Too bad they lacked the authority to bind any authority for said gTLDs. Yeah, and we wouldn't be wasting our time now. ;-) IANA had the authority to do what it was doing. Since it wasn't introducing new TLDs into the root at that point - so it didn't need that authority. It was proceeding along the new TLD definition and evaluation process. The authority to do this did exist, as previously documented on the GA list. This included making judgement calls on how to best to evaluate the registry/TLD applications, and whether those organizations were able to fulfill the registry/registrar functions. This criteria included prior use and credit-card processing. Best Regards, Simon - -- The future is still out there... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:27:51 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 10:46 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >No one cares about your opinion. Simon, Having just spent quite a bit of time carefully trying to correct your remarkable logic and fact errors and then finding that your response is more ad hominems, I will now do you the favor of again processing your messages in the automatic manner they so richly deserve, while hoping that there are at least some OTHER members of this list interested in constructive discussion. Good luck to you. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:32:20 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal At 10:58 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >You do a query on your own DNS server and get a hit on .info. OK, let's use one of your servers (you relay your mail through this one, right?): [simon@vaio simon]$ date Tue Apr 11 06:23:59 GMT 2000 [simon@vaio simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 joy.songbird.com Server: joy.songbird.com Address: 208.184.79.7 Name: berk.serv.nic.info Address: 208.1.127.5 Now let's use one of the ISI servers: [simon@vaio simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 ns.isi.edu Server: darkstar.isi.edu Address: 128.9.128.127 Name: berk.serv.nic.info Address: 208.1.127.5 Now let's try a couple of reliable MIL servers: [simon@vaio simon] nslookup 208.1.127.5 ns1.arl.mil Server: ns1.arl.mil Address: 128.63.16.4 Name: berk.serv.nic.info Address: 208.1.127.5 [simon@vaio simon] nslookup 208.1.127.5 dcmdw.dla.mil Server: dcmdw.dla.mil Address: 131.68.3.1 Name: berk.serv.nic.info Address: 208.1.127.5 >Somehow that is supposed to prove something about CORE? Yes, absolutely, and very conclusively. >At 09:29 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >>At 03:17 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >>>CORE has *no* presold TLDs. >> >>How do you explain the following *FUNCTIONAL* DNS records (maybe DNS for >>a CORE registry TLD server being carried by an alternate root?): >> >>[simon@vaio simon]$ date >>Tue Apr 11 04:32:07 GMT 2000 >>[simon@viao simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 >>Server: vaio.higgs.net >>Address: 204.80.101.90 >> >>Name: berk.serv.nic.info >>Address: 208.1.127.5 Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:40:40 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal At 10:58 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 09:11 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >>At 02:03 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >>>Nope. They were never reachable at all. CORE never set up alternate >>>roots (except for internal testing purposes); and it never sold >>>registrations in any alternate roots. >> >>Not true. A deal was cut by John Gilmore a few years ago (Feb 1998) to >>carry the 5 undisputed TLDs in the ORSC root because CORE had no test >>infrastructure: > >Gosh, Simon. You would not, by any small chance, have some additional >documentation of this tidbit would you? That is, how does one >independently verify that CORE worked with ORSC and used the ORSC >independent (non-IANA) root? I thought you'd never ask. :-) My mistake - ORSC didn't have a root infrastructure in place back then. But eDNS did (and ORSC has since assumed the eDNS root zone): - ------------ Forwarded message ------------ Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 20:38:24 -0800 From: John Gilmore To: Marc Hurst , gnu@toad.com Cc: gtld-servers@toad.com Subject: Adding CORE domains to the eDNS root servers I think your idea is interesting, might bring the communities closer, and don't see how it can cause any harm. You're welcome to add NS records and glue for any or all of the CORE domains to the eDNS root servers. Here is the current set of CORE gTLD name servers: info. 1D IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. info. 1D IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. info. 1D IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. info. 1D IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. info. 1D IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. berk.serv.nic.info. 1D IN A 208.1.127.5 cat.serv.nic.info. 1D IN A 194.140.148.12 srs-sf.serv.nic.info. 1D IN A 209.24.233.193 sf.serv.nic.info. 1D IN A 140.174.2.72 melb.serv.nic.info. 1D IN A 203.14.165.209 The "NS" records should be repeated for each of the CORE gTLD's. At the moment these zones are being generated and propagated every 15 minutes from the SRS. Registrars can enter test registrations and have them be visible in the zone files within about half an hour. Of course, all these test registrations will disappear once we start processing real paid registrations. Please let me know if and when any name servers reference these zones. John - ---------- End Forwarded message ---------- I think Kent should publish a retraction on his previous denials. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:57:37 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 11:27 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 10:46 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: > >Having just spent quite a bit of time carefully trying to correct your >remarkable logic and fact errors and then finding that your response is >more ad hominems, I will now do you the favor of again processing your >messages in the automatic manner they so richly deserve, while hoping that >there are at least some OTHER members of this list interested in >constructive discussion. Firstly, you can't correct what isn't wrong. Secondly, you don't seem to be able to back up your arguments when confronted with the facts. Your solution? Self-imposed ignorance. Good luck to you, in your own small, shallow world. Send us a postcard, OK? Best Regards, Simon - -- "You're all a bunch of bloody loonies." - Bill Oddie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:34:33 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal sigh. didn't get the automatic processing installed in time The good news is that this shows why this topic cannot be discussed independently of the technical issues. ***** FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL REASON THAT SIMON'S EXERCISE DOES NOT AT ALL DEMONSTRATE WHAT HE IS CLAIMING, PLEASE FOLLOW THE REMAINING PEDAGOGY CAREFULLY. ***** And Simon, I compliment you on using a moderately creative bit of mis-direction. One almost did not see the hand switch the entries and servers... At 11:32 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: [simon@vaio simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 joy.songbird.com > Server: joy.songbird.com > Address: 208.184.79.7 > > Name: berk.serv.nic.info > Address: 208.1.127.5 Alas, I had not noticed that you were doing a REVERSE DNS lookup, rather than a forward one. Here we go with the detailed analysis: STEP #1 (using dig rather than nslookup) >[dcrocker]: dig -x 208.1.127.5 > >; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> -x >;; QUERY SECTION: >;; 5.127.1.208.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN > >;; ANSWER SECTION: >5.127.1.208.in-addr.arpa. 1h59m3s IN PTR berk.serv.nic.info. > >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >127.1.208.in-addr.arpa. 1h59m3s IN NS lanshark.lanminds.com. >127.1.208.in-addr.arpa. 1h59m3s IN NS lanfill.lanminds.com. >127.1.208.in-addr.arpa. 1h59m3s IN NS bellpepper.lanminds.net. > >;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: >lanshark.lanminds.com. 1d23h58m59s IN A 208.25.68.5 >lanfill.lanminds.com. 1d23h58m59s IN A 208.25.68.10 >bellpepper.lanminds.net. 11h52m20s IN A 207.174.24.16 This shows: a) the lookup was a reverse lookup, through in-addr.arpa, not through berk.serv.nic.info. That is, it does not show that berk.serv.nic.info will resolve. The owner of the cited IP address, 5.127.1.208, may place any little bit of name silliness they wish into their reverse DNS entry. b) the entry is administered by folks at "lanminds.com". We could stop, here, since that sufficiently shows that Simon's demonstration did NOT show anything at all about the ability to resolve .info. However... STEP #2 lanminds.com is not part of CORE and is not listed by ICANN. STEP #3 >[dcrocker]svpal: nslookup 208.1.127.5 lanshark.lanminds.com >Server: lanshark.lanminds.com >Address: 208.25.68.5 > >Name: berk.serv.nic.info The folks listing the reverse DNS entry DO resolve the .info-based name correctly. STEP #4 Compare lanminds' processing of .com and .info: >[dcrocker]: nslookup info lanshark.lanminds.com >Server: lanshark.lanminds.com >Address: 208.25.68.5 > >*** lanshark.lanminds.com can't find info: Non-existent host/domain >[dcrocker]: nslookup .info lanshark.lanminds.com >Server: lanshark.lanminds.com >Address: 208.25.68.5 > >*** lanshark.lanminds.com can't find .info: Unspecified error > >[dcrocker]: nslookup com lanshark.lanminds.com >Server: lanshark.lanminds.com >Address: 208.25.68.5 > >Name: com It finds com just fine but can't resolve info. Since it CAN resolve a full .info-based name, that means that .info queries are being processed specially, rather than through "the" root. In other words, the fine folks at Lanminds are subscribing to some non-IANA/non-ICANN service that supplies entries for .info. And, therefore, Simon's supplied example does not demonstrate anything at all about CORE or the IANA root. d/ ps. What all this DOES demonstrate, quite effectively, is that time will be used more effectively my rapid installation of the automatic processor for mail from Simon. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #80 *************************