[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] What more could be needed? (was Re: FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 21 November Meeting)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:51:47PM +0000, Alan Woods wrote:
> Is the point here to:
> A) merely accept that the "Resolution of Technical issues", as defined by
> DT1, is a *possible* purpose of RDS; or
> B) are now trying to get agreement on whether that use case, as defined, is
> actually considered a *legitimate *purpose within the new RDS?
> 
> *A* seems like the natural next step in the building block approach. *B *is
> a leap too far.  We simply require much more in-depth discussion about
> several facets specifically regarding 'legitimacy' before we can claim to
> make an informed decision.

I am supportive of the building-block approach in so far as it helps
us make progress, and I fear that the above risks requiring that our
building blocks themselves must be created from the sub-atomic level
on up.  I would like to know what more we need to know about
'legitimacy' before we can agree that resolution of technical issues
is a legitimate purpose of any possible RDS (and not just the new
one).

>From my point of view, the question is really a litmus test of whether
anything even possibly useful can come of this PDP.  If we cannot
agree that a distributed database with distributed operation and
control (rather than central control and authority) needs a
distributed means of contacting operators (i.e. is a legitimate use),
then I can't see how anything is ever going to come out of the WG that
will comport with the way the Internet actually works.  IMO, in such a
case we might as well just recommend eliminating the RDS completely,
knowing that we will damage Internet operations and that operators
will come up with some other work-around to the policy breakage that
appears to be the new Internet normal.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com