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

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....
>>>
>>
>