TriNetre - Archive for January 29, 2004
(no longer updated)
January 29, 2004
Links 290104
[Links]
@ 10:10 AM
Bushisms
Does Perl really have a future?
Shooting the D1X for National Geographic
Amnesty Attacks Singapore Execution Rate
Is ICANN Blowing It Again?
Phantom authority, self–selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia
Leak against this war "US and British officials must expose their leaders' lies about Iraq - as I did over Vietnam"
MSNBC article - Fort N.O.C's
[Technology]
@ 08:56 AM
An interesting argument is playing out in IP mailing list - Fort N.O.C.'s. It all started with an MSNBC article Fort N.O.C.'s, wherein the author Brock N. Meeks describing his visit to the location where the 'A' root server. I guess in his excitement, the reporter seems to have been carried away. He gives the impression that the 'A' root server is the most important of all the servers and carries on to say:
The other root server operators ........
But there is no requirement or regulation placed on these root server operators compelling them to practice good Internet security.
But there is no requirement or regulation placed on these root server operators compelling them to practice good Internet security.
As pointed out by Paul Vixie, an operator of the "F" root name server:
The root name servers are not "operated on a volunteer basis" as
stated in the article. Each of the twelve organizations named on
http://www.root-servers.org/ has funding and oversight from a local
constituency. Operators include ISC (a US-based public benefit
corporation) RIPE NCC (who serves the European internet community) the U S
Department of Defense and NASA, the WIDE consortium in Japan, and others.
For all twelve of us, operating a root name server is a concrete
obligation, and not merely a "sense of duty".
Actually, there ARE requirements placed on the security and operations of root name servers. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published two documents on this topic, RFC 2010 and RFC 2870, and any root server operator who fell out of compliance with these standards would be shamed and otherwise pressured into "shaping up or shipping out." Paradoxically, the only root server operator who could probably ignore IETF's standards without also worrying about losing their position is VeriSign.
Actually, there ARE requirements placed on the security and operations of root name servers. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published two documents on this topic, RFC 2010 and RFC 2870, and any root server operator who fell out of compliance with these standards would be shamed and otherwise pressured into "shaping up or shipping out." Paradoxically, the only root server operator who could probably ignore IETF's standards without also worrying about losing their position is VeriSign.
How many times have we wished for non-dramatic, no-nonsense reporting of technical facts in main stream media? For now, it remains just that - a wish. "Click"
