[At-Large] R: China is going to divide the DNS

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Jul 1 02:22:41 UTC 2012

Roberto Gaetano
> Isn't this what China is already doing for the IDNs under .cn?


> The only difference is that they are now trying to give an "official" status to the solution, methinks.

They respect the Internet standardization proceess (there is no
"official" status at the IETF. There are documented practices and
proposed standards. And a general problem of commercial/political bias
stated by the IAB in its RFC 3869, I fear we are encountering here.

> If I get it correctly, now in China you can use [idn].[idn] because the ISPs point to a different tree, while from outside China you need to use [idn].[idn].cn. Do I get it right?

The ISP in China and the i-DNs plug-in outside of China. This is NOT
an alternative root but the use of additional stubs as far as I know.

> Moreover, what are the chances that this draft gets any support in the IETF?

The term "support" is inappropriate because as you know voting has no
influence at IETF, only rough consensus and running code are
considered. This Draft documents a problem and a stable common
response of the largest existing Internet community. This practice is
in operation for years and does not disturb the DNS operations as they
are currently run. These are facts they state.

What Chinese do, is actually to prepare themselves to receive and
study comments. As per IETF practices.

2012/7/1, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>:
> proposals for alternate/split roots are commonplace.

Sorry, this is not a proposal. This is an experienced problem and a
solution brought to it

>However, it is the first time that an apparently State-sponsored organization is proposing  such a draft.

The IETF is a "loosely self-organized group of people who contribute
to the engineering and evolution of Internet technologies". IETF wise
the organization someone belongs to is irrelevant. There are three
IETF fellows documenting an existing process and calling for comments
before others replicate it.

> The general mood in IETF is that this proposal has very little chance of passing the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

The question is to know if the documented solution is the best one for
similar needs.If some think it is not, they can create an IETF/WG with
the charter of addressing the quoted quasi impossibility.

The question then lies into "why was this proposed", and my personal
take on this, already shared on ISOC discussion lists, is that the
author is looking at ticking the box: "Tried submitting changes
through IETF.

I am afraid this is not the case and offensing. It presumes that these
IETF Chinese fellows are disloyal to the IETF. So far, they check if
the IETF know or want to study a better (RFC 3935) way to address the

As far as I evaluate the I_D, it identifies a new DNS problem as
exemplified in the ICANN case. However, I observe that the I_D only
considers the Chinese case (difficulties and solution) within
- the ICANN management framework,
- the current use of the DNS
- the sole Internet technology.

IMHO this is too specific a situation.

> Did not work. Replace IETF with another organization."

Replacing the IETF with another organization would only be needed if
the IETF was not able to bring an adequate response. I have
experimented such a situation. The IETF procedure is to appeal to the
IESG and possibly escalate to the IAB. The result will be an IETF
position on the matter:

- either:  "this problem is in our area of responsibility, we are able
to address it, and we address it."
- either: "this problem is in our area of responsibility but, sorry,
we are not able to address it. Please proceed with our help and
blessing with a replacing SDO".
- or: "this problem is not in our area of responsibility, however it
also indirectly concerns us, so please proceed and let liaise.

The later response is the one I received in the Internet+.case; what
results in my present I_D on the emergence of the IUTF as a whole
digital ecoystem multitechnology convergence oriented TF, structurally
liaising with the IETF.

This simply results of the growth and technical progress of the Internet.


More information about the At-Large mailing list