[NA-Discuss] Fw: Ban Use of Social Media - British PM

ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon Aug 15 18:42:25 UTC 2011


As I pointed out in my note to Peter and Rod during the period in which
prefix withdrawal announcements had been made, removing routes "to" but
not "through" Egypt from the global routing table, the rate of prefix
annoucement affects the Default Free Zone (DFZ), and therefore has global
effect. Thus, the existence of prefix withdrawal and availability
announcements, at least in their rate of annoucement, and therefore the
convergence time within the DFZ, is properly within the scope of the
entity assumed by some to have a technical coordination purpose.

Peter and Rod didn't think so, and confined their concern to the TTL
value for secondary DNS servers who's primaries were not reachable due
to a logical partition of the net.

In case you missed it, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system administratively
failed its cellular phone antenna infrastructure in anticipation of some
rider protest of a fatal act of gun violence upon a passenger perpetrated
by a system employee.

I suspect a public interest issue is whether a name space should be
persistent, independent of the administrative failure of all services
other than name to address resolution.

Restated, were the acts of Peter and Rod well considered when, upon the
notice that the Egyptian State had withdrawn all prefixes, they acted to
determin if resource record sets were at risk of expiry, and had they
been, as they stated, to have committed to act to prevent the expiry of
those resource records?

More generally, is the persistent resolution of a resource misleading
when the resource has been made unavailable by a third party? At what
point does "answereing for the dead" become synthetic return?

Is the stability and security of the root and critical subordinate DNS
infrastructure advanced by indifference to administrative failure for
state policy ends?

I'm unchanged in my prior view that there is a technical coordination
issue, minimally in informing prefix withdrawing entities that effect
on the DFZ is not without liability, and that if synthetic return and
other forms of forgery are within scope, that the representation that
resources exist when in fact they do not, or "synthetic persistence",
is also within scope.


More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list