Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Jim Fleming
Date/Time: Tue, October 30, 2001 at 1:59 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: Vint Cerf - "I am glad we did not try to open up TLDs wholesale"

Message:
 

 
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 22:20:22 -0400
From: vint cerf vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com

Bob,

your message and Mike Roberts' message seem to be talking past each
other.

Mike is talking about the At Large Study Group, generally.

That everyone with an operating responsibility for some part of the
Internet needs to take resilience, robustness and recovery seriously
seems self-evident. Perhaps more so as people look to Internet to be
an increasingly useful and reliable communication infrastructure.
You and I are in agreement that expansion of the DNS top-level domains
is of uncertain value if the purpose is to turn DNS into some poor-quality
index/directory of Internet content. Some people are apparently convinced
either that DNS can/should be such a directory or that they can make a
lot of money because other people think that way.

ICANN concluded to allow modest expansion to find out what the consequences
would be (a bunch of lawsuits for starters!). I am glad we did not try to
open up TLDs wholesale on the first go around.

DNS itself can do little to prevent terrorist attacks. We can try to make
all the parts of the Internet increasingly resilient and resistant to
various
forms of DOS - but the major vulnerabilities seems to be in the hosts.
We HAVE seen some bad problems with DNS in which responses to unasked
queries
have overwritten tables and allowed hijacking of DNS entries. I'm sure the
catalog of problems merits attention.

I did not see anything in Mike's remarks that led me to think he was
suggesting
that DNS can be a secure source of "meaning" - but why isn't it a useful
exercise
to try to minimize the opportunity for making deliberately falsified
bindings?
vint


 

Link: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200110/msg00438.html


Message Thread: