Combining multiple replies
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> But too many French are entrenched in an anti-American
>> culture that refuses to learn English.> Martin Vigoureux wrote:One. Pouzin is tilting at windmills. Whatever his agenda is, he's acting
> Could you elaborate on how much is "too many"?
like a crying baby (or a politician) and expecting to get back some
visibility by putting the blame on the IETF, (as we all know a
subversive agent of the "Great Satan" the US). I'm with Stephane here:
I'm allergic to BS. And I'm with Jorge too: instead of whining, do
something.
And what if that something is get the French government to contribute to a rival to IETF? Or combine with the governments of Brazil and Mexico to create a larger anti-IETF?
Recently on the FRnOG mailing list we had another troll whining about
the RIPE-NCC documents being in English. I say to both: get a life.
There is nothing more global than the Internet, and whether you like it
or not the language is English. Adapt or go do something else.
Don't complain too much about that part of his scheme. The only thing more likely to doom the aIETF to irrelevance is to adopt ASN.1 as the mandatory encoding.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Having just sat through his presentation at the IGF meeting, I think
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:45:00PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> I've got the same reaction to "IDN technical restrictions". I'm
> not aware of any significant ones unless one has a desire to
> use, e.g., symbols, as domain name labels. And, as far as
> "visual ambiguities" are concerned, I'd love to know what he
> proposes
what he proposes is roughly, "Change math so that trees don't have a
single root." He has just advocated "multiple roots", has asserted
repeatedly that ICANN controls the entire DNS and that the DNS is
therefore controlled by the US, and that IDN is not enough because.
ICANN is a US company incorporated in California that pays its head close to a million dollars a year. If Congress passed a law requiring it to do so, ICANN would drop Palestine and Cuba out of the root. Have you watched US politics recently? Care to assure me that it won't happen?
If DNSSEC and the rPKI are deployed in their current form ICANN would have the ability to enforce control, there would be a prohibitive cost to defections.
There are technical approaches that could preserve the structure of the DNS naming system but remove ICANN from the equation.
For example, an alternative DNS root supported by a dozen governments could offer registration direct into root for the same price as currently charged for a .com. They can direct their national registrars to chain to the new root. It would strip ICANN's ability to sell domains at $250,000 a time.
France has already driven Europe to develop and deploy its own rival to GPS at a cost of many billions of dollars. They can do the same for the DNS.
Happily, we have open-root (perhaps amusingly, available from
http://open-root.eu/), which is prepared to offer you this
alternate-root, not-IDN-but-internationalized, all-works-magically
solution.
Do not assume that because a group of crackpots setting up an alternate root in an underground bunker that doubled as a meths lab failed to set up an alternative root that all such plans are tilting at windmills. [Yes I know it was a different breakaway root but the principle is the same]
I have a great deal of respect for M. Pouzin's contributions to the
technical development of the Internet. I'm afraid, however, that I
can't tell the difference between what he just proposed and a barker's
proposal for the Medicinal Compound, "efficacious in every case".
No, these guys are completely serious and there is an international movement to bloody the nose of the US in response to the Snowden leaks.
They don't need to know what they are doing technically. The technical part is easy from their point of view.
And why assume that the correct response to such an effort is to resist it?
I am quite willing to shoot other people's puppies. I think we have to admit that the current rPKI design is dead as a parrot at this stage. Putting that on the table merely adds the RIRs to the target list along with ICANN. I have been pointing out that if ICANN wants independence from the US then it needs to give up control of the DNSSEC apex signer for several years.
The question is not what we might have to give up but what we might get in return. When I wargame the alternatives I see one particular scheme that any governmental attempt to break from US control is forced to place very large bets on because making that change is the key to enabling all the others. This is even more so when we look at routing security than in DNS space.
The key is IPv6.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/