RE: Statements against new.net?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

> From: Clayton Fiske [mailto:clay () bloomcounty org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:52 PM

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:14:50PM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:

> and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each
> root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be
> coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing
> to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in
> another.

Well actually, there is. Leah is exploring that with BIZ as we speak.

> Hmm. A "60K text file that scales well" seems oxymoronic to 
> me. It either
> scales, or it's 60K. :)
>
> Forgive the cheap shot there, but there's a point to it: If 
> client caches
> have to get glue from/for as many different sources as feel 
> like creating
> TLDs, that text file won't be 60K for long. There's no reason 
> it couldn't
> end up being 60M eventually. Of course, a hierarchical glue 
> system could
> be established -- oh wait, that would be coordinated.

Currently, the ORSC root zone is around 90KB. However, that id seriously
dwarfed by the COM zone file.

> This is what I'm referring to above about pretend multiple root zones.
> Even if you put different pieces of the root zone on 
> different servers,
> operated by different entities, the only way to ensure there are not
> conflicts is by coordinating the information contained in each. And if
> you're doing that, it's still a singular root zone, just distributed.

You may have a point. But that is exactly what's going on with the ORSC zone
file.

> Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much
> you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be
> avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word
> from somewhere to eliminate them.

His current name is Richard Sexton. However, some efforts are being made to
correct that.

> > > And sometime in May, we'll have the complaints that IP 
> addresses are
> > > political because they only allow 256 values per octet, and a
> > > class-action lawsuit is planned for the number 257, 258, 
> -3, and all
> > > the fractions.
> >
> > This is a matter of mathematics, not politics.  How to get 
> root glue to all
> > clients that need it is a technical topic.  Who should be 
> the distributor of
> > that glue is a political topic.  This is the crux of the matter.
>
> So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not
> engaging the political topic in question...

As Patrick pointed out, the 2826 authors are being somewhat disengenious.
The timing is entirely too coincidental. Looking at their local context, it
is entirely clear whom they meant to be the distributor.