[ih] DNS root redirection test

[Dave CROCKER]

Nicolas Adam wrote:
> By the way, reading about the redirection never fails to bring tears to my
> eyes, call me sensible if you will. Still, it is also an event that was a
> failure because it was only meant as a bravado and


No bravado was involved, though it is an oft-asserted myth.

Jon didn't do bravado.  He didn't do games.  For a long time, I thought he
didn't understand them, but it eventually became clear that, being a bright guy,
the issue was not comprehension but rather a choice not to indulge.

Because of my IAHC participation, I was chatting with Jon periodically, about
things DNS, including perhaps a week before the event and a week after.  I
wasn't privy to any of his planning but his tone before and after, and his
explanation after were entirely consistent with how he seemed to generally do
things.

Jon had long-standing responsibility (and authority) for administration of the
root of the DNS. The best demonstration of this was the oft-repeated statement
by the root operators that they simply did what Jon told them to do.

At the time of the event, NSI had been in the midst of doing quite a bit of
posturing, including rumors of going rogue.  That is, declaring independence of
IANA and the established DNS control structure, since they had the master copy
of the root.  That wasn't innuendo.  That was the direct, vigorous tone and
language from NSI spokesfolk.  Since they were running the machine that
contained the master copy of the root, this constituted a real and present
danger, in the eyes of anyone who felt concern for maintaining continuity over
the DNS root.

When doing line management, a threat of operational failure requires developing
-- and testing -- a contingency plan for continuity, in case the threat is realized.

That's what Jon did.  He developed and tested a plan for routing around NSI,
should it have decided to declare independence.  The event in question tested
the feasibility of that plan.

Jon seemed frankly surprised that Ira Magaziner was upset and that Magaziner had
somehow thought that Jon needed to consult with Magaziner before making
operations decisions.



> I think that the redirection ending could have been spun in a much

Jon was very clear about explaining what he did and why.  The "spinning" was
done by other folk who chose not to believe him and insisted that he had a
different agenda.  They had no evidence for this, however.


> let me ask you a question that is very much political, if you don't mind:
> what do you all think was the normative edifice behind IAHC/ISOC's moves in
> this institutionalization war (implied also counts). As Craig puts it (and i
> 
1.  I don't know what "normative edifice" means.

2.  The IAHC was a child of IANA.  It was staffed by appointments from multiple
sources, but the authority for any use of the IAHC's report belonged to IANA.
(As I said earlier, ISOC's Don Heath was initially confused about this.)  ISOC
had nothing to do with the line of authority, since ISOC had nothing to do with
DNS administration, operations or funding.

3.  Perhaps the biggest reason the IAHC project failed was that it never acted
politically.  It was commissioned as merely one more Internet effort to design a
solution to a problem with some competing constraints.  It was an extended group 
effort.  Not nearly as personality-driven as some folks tend to portrary. It 
developed plenty of community support, although yes also community resistance. 
It met with whoever would talk with it.  But it never calculated real political 
thinking for any of this, during my time with it, nor that I could see evidence 
of afterwards.


> had that impression also), Mueller's account borders on making the "technical
> priesthood" into vilains. That is no doubt due to his view

Milton's rather creative analysis and even more creative use of citations was
the subject of my review:

    <http://bbiw.net/recent.html#ruling>

I still find it curious that there wasn't an ethics review of his citations.


> that the namespace was better off coordinated by a rationalistic approach to
> common-pool resources, but it seemed a bit disingenuous with regard to 1) the
> windfall gain of NSI, and, more problematic still, 2)

He had an oddly blind eye about NSI problems.


> the prospect of monopoly and its related spill-over leveraging that said 
> "technical priesthood" *seemed* to have been fighting against, amongst other
> things. (Then again, reading Mueller's "Universal service" suggests he might
> have more sympathy for monopolies that i first thought possible when i read
> "Ruling the Root")
> 
> Hence the question: what were those things that you would say you were 
> fighting against?

I listed the 3 forces I saw, in an earlier posting.


 >   and what were those things that you would say you were
> fighting for? I'm very interested in any account that would speak for Jon
> Postel's vision.

I don't recall talking about such things with Jon.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net