[dns-wg] NTIA NoI: does anyone care?

Joao,
not exactly and immediately today.
The problem is that new tool will be used in software and especially 
end-user soft.
As it will happen the situation will be changed radically.
Or I am madness or something miss.

Dmitry

Joao Damas ?????:
> Dmitry,
> my mail was not technical at all.
> How does the state of affairs change from today? what are your 
> reaction possibilities and their impact and how do they differ from 
> today's scenario? Does the signing of the root zone actually impede or 
> make harder any of the reactions you would exercise today against, for 
> example, the deletion of a ccTLD from the root zone?
> is there an analysis of how zone signing changes any of this?
>
> Joao
>
>
> On 20/10/2008, at 16:42, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
>
>> Joao,
>> to be realistic - the most probable reaction will be refuse to sign 
>> with all following consequences.
>> SIDR deployment (as it propsed today) it will be a real problem.
>> DNSSEC deployment will be less problematic but still a problem as it 
>> will be used in software more and more.
>>
>> It also raises an old question about Internet governance and role of 
>> USG in this process as will enforce DoC position.
>> Some people for years tried to explain root servers stability and 
>> practical independence from any one government now their arguments 
>> will fall down.
>> In any of NTIA's proposed scheme it will be under one country 
>> regulation and if previously you can imagine partly functional ccTLDs 
>> even if zone was changed -
>> now if signature will be invalid/recalled (don't know term in 
>> english) it will be more problematic.
>>
>> When we begin to use digital signatures for infrastructure - may be, 
>> we miss the point that this tool is just a reflection of some real world
>> relations and obligations and based on national laws and other lawyer 
>> stuff.
>> Putting it on this part of the net we risk to involve all issues from 
>> real world.
>>
>> And all benefits which you mentioned and which I understand and 
>> recognize from technical point of view will be non significant.
>>
>> regards,
>> Dmitry
>>
>>
>> Joao Damas ?????:
>>> This is an argument that has repeated itself for some time now, with 
>>> few arguments to back it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps those with doubts about how a signed zone might be wielded 
>>> as a weapon against some party, would be interested in performing an 
>>> analysis of what the possible reactions are to such an attempt and 
>>> compare both the actions and their result to today's situation with 
>>> an unsigned zone. Then for the extra bonus, analyse the benefits of 
>>> having a signed zone when it is not being wielded as a weapon 
>>> (assuming the previous analysis actually finds that possibility to 
>>> be real)
>>>
>>> Joao Damas
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2008, at 18:41, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Reid wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jim,
>>>> for me it seems - that it will raise governance issues and it is 
>>>> not technical problem - but more political and legal issue.
>>>> I really worry about potential consequences of all these intentions 
>>>> to deploy on the net some digital signatures based techniques (aka 
>>>> DNSSEC, sidr)
>>>> It is very risky and can provocate Internet fragmentation.
>>>> We can try to improve security and stability - but in result we can 
>>>> get totally different Internet - it is like as some kind of Pandora 
>>>> box.
>>>>
>>>> Dmitry
>>>>> So far there has been no discussion on the list about the NTIA 
>>>>> proposals about getting the root signed. I would have hoped 
>>>>> someone would have said something by now. Sigh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please try to find some time to look at the NTIA's suggestions and 
>>>>> if possible send your comments to the list. I think this WG has an 
>>>>> obligation to make some sort of "official" response to the NTIA's 
>>>>> consultation. After all, we played our part to get the ball 
>>>>> rolling by producing the "sign the root" letter to ICANN at the 
>>>>> Tallinn meeting. So now that there are some concrete proposals for 
>>>>> consideration, I feel the WG should look at them and respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also welcome suggestions from WG members about how to 
>>>>> stimulate a discussion here about the NTIA proposals. Although 
>>>>> time has been set aside in the RIPE57 agenda, that won't be 
>>>>> enough. The majority of people on this list won't be in Dubai. And 
>>>>> besides, it's really the list that should decide the WG's opinion 
>>>>> and what action it should take.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over to you....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>