Subject: hypocrisy of zeroconf

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:44:17 -0400

you know, if I said "hey, I've got an idea for a new TCP extension that 
allows it to optimize for short request/replys in two packets" then I
*know* I'd get serious pushback on that because it's been known (via
analysis) for decades that you need at least five packets to do that 
reliably - at least, for the set of assumptions in which TCP is 
expected to operate.  arguments of the form "hey, it works when I try it"
would fall on deaf ears - I'd be expected to either provide proof that
the earlier work was incorrect or to show that I'm exploiting a 
useful case for which the original analysis did not apply.  And I'd
consider that entirely reasonable.

on the other hand, when the zeroconf folks say "hey, we can redefine
IP to work differently than applications expect, and we can also redefine
DNS to work differently than applications expect, and it won't break
anything - we tried it and it works for us!"  then people say 
"hey, what a wonderful thing this is!  isn't it nice that [vendor] is 
shipping it in product without bothering to do either analysis of the
probable failure modes or waiting for the bugs to be worked out!"

Keith

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:48:53 -0400

Keith,

If you're going to send mail to the iab/iesg, you might want to at
least include context so folk there know what it is you are
complaining about and perhaps also indicate what should be done
instead. I suspect that most folk who read your note will recognize
that you are unhappy, but not have the foggiest why.

(Truth-in-advertising: I've been following the discussions on zeroconf
and am not completely sure what your specific issue is and I'd rather
not be guessing, given the range of discussion that has been taking place.)

Thomas

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:16:04 -0400

> instead.

noted.  I had hoped IESG would be more up on this WG especially since
it's trying to change the behavior of fundamental pieces of Internet 
infrastructure, but I certainly recognize that IESG folks never have 
enough time to cover everything that deserves scrutiny.

unfortunately I don't know how to include context without going into
lots of detail which is going to take more time both to write and to
read, and is going to have to wait until at least next week.

Keith

---

From: Joshua Graessley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:21:02 -0700

> probable failure modes or waiting for the bugs to be worked out!"

Still blathering by my measure.

There is nothing about the zeroconf proposals that "redefines IP to 
work differently than applications expect". An application that uses IP 
can continue to transparently do so with an IPv4 link local address 
without knowing the difference. Using a link-local IPv4 address does 
not change anything. It does create problems when using a multihomed 
host but most of those problems can be solved in the IP stack. The only 
problem that can't be solved in the stack is the ambiguity of an IPv4 
link local address that may exist on more than one interface. This can 
also be a problem with the use of private network address ranges. So 
does the benefit of using IPv4 link-local addresses outweigh the risks 
that people will have problems with multihoming? I think so.

You keep claiming that we're trying to "redefine DNS to work 
differently than applications expect". There are APIs that applications 
uses to access DNS, usually for the purpose of resolving a name to an 
address or an address to a name. Most applications know nothing about 
the actual implementation of DNS. Does an application care if a 
recursive query is done? No. Why should it care if a query is sent to 
the multicast address instead of a unicast address?

-josh

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:27:11 -0400

Keith,

	The main problem all along has been lack of specific technical details
in your emails that a reasonable person could review and understand.

IMNVHO, it really would be best if you did whatever work/analysis/other
you think is necessary, submerged while doing that, and resurfaced only
when you can put a specific technical issue in front of the ZeroConf WG
*for a proposal actually being handled within the ZeroConf WG*
(as different from being handled within DNSEXT WG, for example).

Thanks,

Ran
PS:	I've trimmed the distribution of my reply deliberately and quite 
substantially.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:34:01 -0400

> (as different from being handled within DNSEXT WG, for example).

one problem with doing that is that it's very difficult for IESG to
push back on a group that thinks it has completed its work with 
little or no dissent.  people need to be reminded from time to time
that there are problems with the work so that they aren't completely
surprised when the detailed analysis does arrive.

Keith

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:44:25 -0400

Keith,

How many times a day do you think is sufficient ?

Right now, it appears that you think the IESG needs hourly reminders.
Surely the IESG are more competent than that.  I know for certain
that they are already overly busy with real work (as different
from potential future work that isn't yet real).

Even if I bought your argument, which I don't since you haven't
made a *technical* argument yet, I'd think once a week would be
more than sufficient to make it clear that you are unhappy.

And I'm still wondering why you are spun up in ZeroConf about
a proposal that is being handled in a different WG (but, PLEASE,
don't explain that to me because I'm not really that interested).

Ran

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:40:59 -0400

> probable failure modes or waiting for the bugs to be worked out!"

And your analysis with proof of all the bad things zeroconf does is 
where?

john

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:47:59 -0400

> surprised when the detailed analysis does arrive.

<oy vey>....you haven't come up with one single legitimate problem. 
You've listed an encyclopedia's worth of vague warnings about the end 
of the Internet if Zeroconf gets out on it...hmm...nope, hasn't 
happened.

john