Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9703/000044_owner-urn-ietf _Thu Mar 20 16:06:26 1997.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-04-01 | 4KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA26068
    for urn-ietf-out; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1])
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26063
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:06:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acl.lanl.gov by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
        id AA18664  (mail destined for [e-mail]); Thu, 20 Mar 97 16:06:22 -0500
Received: from montana (montana.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.143]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA00655; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:06:01 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:05:08 -0700
To: "Karen R. Sollins" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
From: "Ron Daniel, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [URN] question #3 - management of usage
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ron Daniel, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

At 06:49 PM 3/18/97 -0500, Karen R. Sollins wrote:
>Question:
>The question really is two part: are controls needed on the behavior
>of customers of the RDS and if so, what sorts of mechanisms should be
>mentioned, given that any such mechanism will need to be incorporated
>into the protocols?
[...]
>Comment:
>I have no strong opinions about this subject other than to believe in
>the tragedy of the commons, given no pressure on individuals to behave
>otherwise.

I agree with your comment about the first part of the question. If there
are no bounds whatsoever on user behavior then we are going to see
lots of uses we would consider inappropriate and detrimental to the
orderly operation of the system.

I don't agree with the assumption in the second part of the question that
"any such mechanism will need to be incorporated into the protocols".
Registering a domain name in .com does not happen for free. But that
is not wired into the DNS protocol specification, it is handled by
separate administrative functions. (Those functions were set up
in other documents, but not in any requirements DNS needed to meet).

I certainly think that the RDS requirements document should state that
any proposed RDS MUST NOT preclude the establishment of a control
mechanism. I'm considerably less certain about it even saying that
mechanisms proposed for consideration as an Internet standard MAY
include such mechanisms.

To indulge in an example, the problem is one of policy boundaries.
Just as I adamantly believe that this group cannot specify a security
policy for all URN resolvers, we cannot specify a "control" policy.
You mention pricing as one way of limiting behavior. If the DOE labs
set up a system for the resolution of classified URNs, we are not going
to rely on setting prices on classified documents to prevent "need-to-know"
violations. Usage will limited and monitored in other ways, and
inappropriate use may result in involuntary relocation to Levenworth KS.
The precise methods for limiting and monitoring behavior are not
the sort of thing that can or should appear in an Internet standard.

Later,

Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:[phone]
Advanced Computing Lab        fax:[phone]
MS B287                     email:[e-mail]
Los Alamos National Lab      http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545