[wg-c] reposted for Paul Garrin

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

>From: Paul Garrin <pg@lokmail.net>
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] reposted for Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
>Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:38:42 -0500
>
>Dear Kent,
>
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 10:37:54PM -0500, Paul Garrin wrote:
>> > > Or, rather, the coordination authority is really the root.
>> > 
>> > A coordination authority would be applicable in the administrative
>> > sense, but not necessarily in the technical sense.  Administrative
>> > coordination is important for quality control and accreditation of
>> > operators and in the setting of and enforcement of standards.  This
>> > could be done by ICANN, or it could be the IETF or the IAB.
>> > The most important criteria rather than who does it is that is is
>> > done with competence and understanding of the underlying technical
>> > issues, and with fairness.
>>
>>Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>> If you have the "trusted administrative coordinating body" (TACB) you
>> describe, then the technical developments you talk of are a pointless
>> waste of time.  The TACB will define the root zone, and good technical 
>> means for distributing a root zone already exist.  
>>
>
>Innovative software and systems development is never a waste of time
>in my opinion.  Our plan to proceed with these developments is our right,
>regardless of the traditional orthodoxy or "conventional wisdom".
>
>> Furthermore, there are well-established fora for the development of new
>> technical means for distributing a root zone -- the IETF fields about 
>> 5000 extremely competent network engineers, and, while I'm sure your 
>> staff has competent people on it, they simply cannot provide the depth 
>> of expertise and peer review that the IETF does.
>>
>
>It is likely that our developments will go to the IETF for peer review
>at some point.  We don't believe that is is necessary to do so in order
>for it to function technically, but it would be nice tradition to give
>them a crack at it.
>
>> Even more, the next generation technical means for distributing a root
>> zone (DNSSEC) are being developed and deployed as we speak.  The issues
>> are complex, and have involved hundreds of real experts in the area. 
>>
>
>We are well aware of the DNSSEC developments and don't intend to
>re-invent the wheel, but to use existing technologies in best
>practice development and implementation.  All of our work is based
>on existing standards, there is nothing exotic or non-standard
>about it.  I'm sure the IETF would approve in the end, and may
>even want to get involved.  They can if they would like to join
>our developer's consortium.
> 
>> [...]
>> > Decentralized sharing of TLD zones is technically
>> > more difficult and demanding to reduce the number of collisons,
>> > or conflicting applications for the same sld strings, but it is
>> > not an impossible task to achieve.
>> 
>> However, it is a waste of time without trusted coordination, and if you
>> have trusted coordination, it is still a waste of time, because in that
>> case current methods for handling shared registries work fine.  To
>> rephrase, the "shared TLD zones" you describe do not diminish the need
>> for trusted coordination, and if you have trusted coordination, you 
>> don't need shared zones.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>> 
>
>There are no shared registries that I know of in a true sense, only
>monopoly run registries.  Perhaps our definitions differ and that point
>needs to be clarified.  We choose to define it through code and
implementation,
>not rhetoric (with all due respect).  I'll invite you to our release party
>when it's ready, if you don't mind coming to Manhattan.
>
>regards,
>
>Paul Garrin