Subject: draft-iab-unique-dns-root-00.txt

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 00 10:19:54 CET

Hi DNS-OPers,

The above document is on the IESG table for publication as Informational.
Could some of you pls take a quick look at it and let me know if you
see any trouble with it? Preferably before Thursd 5pm my time
(Central European Time).

Thanks,
Bert

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:13:34 +0100

> see any trouble with it? Preferably before Thursd 5pm my time

Hereby done.

I warmly welcome the document, and see no reason to modify any of the
text.  I (personally) am glad that the IAB wishes to take that
standpoint, and i support them from the bottom of my heart.

YMMV.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# What the DNS really needs, is CLUE records ... ;-)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, Systems Specialist	! E-mail: [email-masked]
# KTH Network Operations Centre         ! HTTP  : //www.sunet.se/~liman
# Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden	! Voice : Int +46 8 - 790 65 60
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:29:01 -0500 (EST)

I've read through the document and support it.  A statement of this nature
is long overdue.

Ray

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:53:35 +0100

>I've read through the document and support it.  A statement of this nature
the statement is actually rather old by now; it was originally made last 
year, in a response to a particular discussion with ICANN (see IAB or ICANN 
web pages for details, I think).

the republication as RFC is our hope that we won't have to say this over 
and over and over and over again....

                  Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:15:22 -0500 (EST)

I'm well aware of how old this discussion is.  By being long overdue, I
meant just what your hope is.  I would characterize any previous
'statement' as a part of discussion, where as stating it in an RFC becomes
more of an official position hence a statement.

Ray

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:21:24 -0800

> I've read through the document and support it.  A statement of this nature

As it happens, I have read the document several times over the past
months.  It is indeed about two years overdue.  At first I was a little
disappointed that it wasn't more aggressively technical (for example
addressing cache-poisoning issues with multiple roots), but in
retrospect, a single root is really a fundamental design principle, and
the rest is just implementation.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:04:36 -0800

I just want to go on record as saying that I see the proposed statement as
wholly unnecessary. At present, market forces have kept the overwhelming
majority of users within the so called "unique DNS root." For present
purposes, market forces (and not a standards document, even if solely
informational) seem adequate to accomplish the desired result.

Why suggest something that is already in effect?

        -- Bret Fausett

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:25:10 -0800

Bret,

The "market forces" arguement carries limited weight in the IETF. The need
(overdue) for draft-iab-unique-dns-root-00.txt is evident from the number
of technically underspecified proposals to resolve a policy problem without
a mechanism.

Eric

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:14:03 -0500

All of the IETF "standards" are without legal force and adopted by
people for their mutual benefit.  One of the greatest strengths of the
DNS system is that it is so easy to set up a set of root servers so
you know that if people are using the generally accepted root, it is
their choice.  Ignoring strictly local additions to local clones of
the generally accepted root, the Internet has chosen to continue with
the one generally accepted root.  Even at the shrillest points of the
argument, no more than 1/2 % of the net chose to use "enhanced" or
other variants.  This RFC documents why it would be chaos is there
were variant global DNS roots.

Apparently enough people keep coming with schemes involving multiple
different roots that an authoritative statement of the problems with
that was needed.

Even if it is just to save the time of people having to repeated
explain this, it is probably worth having this document.

Donald

From:  "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
User-Agent:  Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513)
Date:  Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:04:36 -0800
To:  <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>