[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ETSI "sentence" in the PSO-PC Alternative Roots Statement



Dear Vlad, dear PSO PC colleagues,

Everything agreed in this final version except for the ETSI "sentence" that
should read:

****************************************************************************
"ETSI supports the IETF statement and the ITU-T Study Group 2 statement.
ETSI considers that the ITU-T Study Group 2 statement  is outside the scope
of the PSO".
***************************************************************************

Kind regards,
Azucena

At 15:19 10/10/01 +0200, Androuchko, Vladimir wrote:
>Dear Protocol Council Members,
>As far as I understood from your discussion, this would be the version of
PSO-PC Statement to be send to Mr. S. Lynn. If everybody agrees on this
version, I'll send this message.
>Kind regards,
>Vlad
>
>Dear Stuart,
>On behalf of the Protocol Council, I'm sending you the Position of the
>PSO-PC on the Alternative Roots Issue. It was agreed that each Protocol
>Supporting Organization gives also its comments/statements concerning 
>the Alternative Roots Issue.
>
>The PSO Statement is:
>
>"The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
>Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
>standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, 
>there appears to be no technical reason for changing from the present 
>working system, as this would require the development of a new set of 
>protocols for use by the DNS."
>
>Additional IETF statement:
>
>"The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured name space 
>known as the DNS.  Of necessity, such a name space must have a single, 
>authoritative root. Moving to a model that would not require such a 
>single, authoritative root would require replacing the present, working 
>DNS with some other system. Such a replacement would require the 
>development of a new naming paradigm, as well as the protocols and 
>software to implement it. Developing and deploying such replacement 
>protocols would take years, and would have enormous potential for 
>disruption of the Internet.  IETF does not see any technical benefit 
>in such an effort."
>
>The ITU-T Study Group 2 conclusion on the Alternative Roots Issue, 
>which was reached during the ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting (Geneva, 4-14 
>September 2001) states:
>
>"Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it.
>However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in 
>addition to technical reasons such as administrative and national 
>sovereignty considerations."
>
>ETSI supported the ITU-T Study Group 2 Statement and the IETF Statement.
>W3C supported IETF Statement.
>
>
>
>
*************************************************
Azucena Hernandez
Telefonica
Desarrollo de Red
c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID
Tel: +34 91 5846842
Fax: +34 91 5846843
GSM: +34 609 425506
E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
************************************************