Donald - don't bother arguing this with me. You have a very old-school idea of the IETF and its pointless for me to point out where we differ in our opinions or where I believe you are wrong. But that's OK. The IETF like the rest of the first pass ideas that didn't really work in the longer term will get morphed into more stable and structured environments Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> Cc: "'The IETF'" <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: Why People Should NOT Depend on "Root Servers" > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:16:19 -0700 > > From: todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> > > To: 'The IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, chandley@ntia.doc.gov, nvictory@ntia.doc.gov, > > censslin@ntia.doc.gov, DEvans@doc.gov > > Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de > > Subject: Re: Why People Should NOT Depend on "Root Servers" > > > > Folks - > > Paul Vixie is dead on here but the real problem is not DNS, but rather the > > routing protocols that allow this type of address forgery to be propagated. > > This is the subtle difference here and the biggest criminal here is that > > even with a forged DNS service, the real issue is still Cisco and its > > brethren for forcing the propagation of routing standards that are > > insecurable and indefensible - the other bad-guy here is the IETF for not > > being more in control or forcing issues of security to be ingrained into > > their protocols that they have or are in the process of making as standards. > > You do not understand how the IETF works. It is a voluntary organization > producing voluntary standards. IETF has no authority over Cisco. As far > as IETF protocols go, as far as I can tell, the IESG is ratcheting up > the level of security in new protocols about as fast as IETF rough > consensus will allow. > > > This is one of the greatest instances proving that the ICANN and the IETF > > themselves with their current management and format, are incompetetent to > > build or enforce standards. > > I'm not going to say anything about ICANN but you do not understand how > the IETF works. As an organization producing voluntary standards, it has > no power to "enforce standards", never has, and as far as I can tell, > wisely does not want such power. > > > If they had done their job properly and allowed > > external input or review of their efforts, then this never would have > > happened. > > I'm not going to say saything about ICANN but you do not understand how > the IETF works. It is an open organization without defined membership. > As such, who would be "external" to the IETF that is not being allowed > to give "input" (other than one or two abusive individuals)? Since all > drafts and mailing lists are publicly readable, who is it who is not > being allowed to "review" IETF work? > > > Just my personal 2 cents here. > > Todd Glassey > > I wish you would finally get around to deciding that the IETF is > hopeless so you would devote your efforts to other standards > organizations that you would find more competant. > > Donald > >