Subject: Re: DS and Opt-in - a proposal

From: [email-masked] (Ted Lindgreen)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:39:28 +0100

[Quoting Roy Arends, on Jan 13, 14:11, in "Re: DS and Opt-in -  ..."]

> I've a lock on the front and back door of my house.  That is by choice.
> I will protest if I must have locks on every door, including the
> kitchen-sink.
> 
> Opt-In offers a choice.  Some may not like that choice.  I do.

Thanks Roy, you hit the nail on the head, this is exactly what other
people bothers: it is the granularity of the choice, and the effect
on that for the larger community.

- If the goal is to make a protocol to lock the doors of their
  own chosing of their own homes (secure a certain RR) then
  yes, Opt-In is absolutely a brilliant idea.

- However, if the goal is to make a common infrastructure safer,
  there is serious doubt that Opt-In will lead to that more
  quickly.

Let me give another example:

  If there is a need to make the airline infrastructure safer then
  checking the people that get into the planes may help, lets
  assume it does.

  Now, like with DNSSEC, it is unrealistic to have all airfields
  over the whole world to implement this overnight, so partial
  implementation is a fact of life.

  Now, with small grain granularity, i.e. leave it up to the
  individual airfield to check, check not, or check only the
  blue-eyed people, it's not likely that the goal will be reached
  quickly: most people have little choice in their destination,
  they just need to go there for some reason, and even then there
  might even be a brown-eyed terrorist.

  In the course grain granularity, say a number of large countries
  pick it up for all their fields, it leads to:
  1. The choice, at least for people in these large countries
     becomes clear: limit your travel to countries that comply,
     or live dangerously.
  2. Organisers of large meetings may decide to stick to
     those countries.
  3. Countries that don't comply may see a strong reason
     to change their policy, f.i. to not be avoided. Others,
     who love the dangerous, might not.

Also compare this with USENET: dividing the USENET world into a
highly regulated "mod", an anarchistic "alt" and for the rest
self-regulated hierachies at the top level worked out beautiful. It
worked out so well, because it was totally clear what you could
expect on where you are in the tree. Before that splitup, it
was a little mess here and there.

-- ted

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:31:45 +0100 (CET)

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Ted Lindgreen wrote:

> people bothers: it is the granularity of the choice, and the effect on
> that for the larger community.
>

The granularity boils down to a single node, not individual RRsets, but
anyway...

>   blue-eyed people,

This is getting silly.

Check blue-eyed people: opt-in ?

"either walk, or go by car. Going by bike will only lead to people going
in wrong directions."

If you want to discuss this seriously, I'm open to that, until then ...

roy