Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Vixie/BIND: Dangerous Combination

From: Michael Dillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:13:17 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Jim Dixon wrote:

> But Paul Vixie is known to be reliable, trustworthy, and honest.  I for
> one would be happy with a solution that involved turning over day to day
> operational management of the root name servers to him, at least until
> ICANN has enough of a track record for us to trust it -- perhaps in a
> year or two in other words.

How would you feel about giving ICANNoperational control of all the root
nameservers provided that they contract with Paul Vixie's ISC to build the
operational organization that woul actually handle the day to day work.
Then when the one or two year contract with Vixie is over, ICANN has a
bulletproof operation to go forward with. I know that Vixie would deliver
an organization that takes its job seriously, uses reliable and stable
technologand is responsive to the network operations community who rely on
the root nameserver system's stability.

--
Michael Dillon                 -               E-mail: [email-masked]
Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com

---

From: Michael Dillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:13:17 -0800 (PST)

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:56:07 -0800

>the root nameserver system's stability.

Yes, and the ISC certainly could use the revenue. I better operational idea
hasn't been stated yet, IMHO.
___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
 Who is John Galt?
 "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:56:07 -0800

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:40:22 -0500

> hasn't been stated yet, IMHO.

I sure ain't heard a better one.  Some people find Paul hard to take, but
no one has every questioned his integrity or dedication to the job he
rather thanklessly fills.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Ideology, politics and journalism, which luxuriate in failure, are
impotent in the face of hope and joy.
	-- P. J. O'Rourke

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:40:22 -0500

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Nov 1998 13:42:34 -0800

I missed the front part of this thread since it didn't pass the censor I
subscribe to.  There are replies to three messages below:

> year or two in other words.

The root name servers are already managed, though.  Each one has an operator:
F is run by ISC for example; B and L are run by ISI; the list goes on.  Since
I'm the main author of the program that handles all the DNS traffic on these
servers, I take a fairly paternalistic view of the overall system, but there
is no lack for "operational management" on any of the root name servers.

ISC has offered to contract for the control and monitoring of any of the root
servers if their owners and physical operators want our help.  (Obviously we
would need their remote hands support periodically.)  We have also offered
to help ICANN in any way they can conceive of needing us.

[email-masked] (Michael Dillon) writes:
> How would you feel about giving ICANN operational control of all the root
> operational organization that would actually handle the day to day work.

That's a different problem.  ICANN will certainly need contractors and ISC
will certainly bid on any DNS-related work they RFP.  And for the record,
it's not "Paul Vixie's ISC".  I'm the chairman, David Conrad is the 
executive director, Bob and Michael and Ted and James and Dave write most
of the code any more, and the organization is a lot bigger than just me.

> technology and is responsive to the network operations community who rely
> on the root nameserver system's stability.

While I appreciate the kind words (and I even agree with them in this case),
there seems to be confusion over the nature of the existing system.  NSI does
not operate anything other than their own servers (A and J).  The system's
overall integrity depends on cooperation among the root name server operators
as a group.  And it's a very cooperative group.

The only unique roles NSI has among root name server operators right now,
which I think is the implicit topic of discussion above, is that they are
the publication point for "." itself.  But since NSI only edits the "."
zone on explicit request from IANA (soon to be ICANN), this is not something
we need to worry about moving to some other contractor in the short term.

[email-masked] ("Roeland M.J. Meyer") writes:
> Yes, and the ISC certainly could use the revenue.
> A better operational idea hasn't been stated yet, IMHO.

Thanks for your confidence.  And it's true, ISC is always hunting for funds.
But that ought not be a reason to insert new steps into the ICANN transition
process -- there's no emergency at this moment, and ICANN is aware of their
responsibilities in this area, and their own (open) process will eventually
include appropriate steps in this area.  IETF, per se, does not need to take
any action in this area at this time.

> rather thanklessly fills.

Actually, Karl and the other crazies have questioned my integrity more than
once.  And it's not a thankless task -- my work in the field has been
recognized both privately and publically, in numerous heartwarming displays
such as the 1997 SAGE Outstanding Achievement Award or the long list of
private e-mail from folks who, though they find me hard to take, also seem
to find it easy to run our code.  And while that kind of recognition wasn't
and isn't my basic motivation for what I do, it sure helps me on bad days.
-- 
Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Nov 1998 13:42:34 -0800