4 ms·
The single biggest thing keeping the root servers working is the very model this law would disrupt. Indeed, you want ecosystem diversity. You don't want every
by EricE 5y ago
The single biggest thing keeping the root servers working is the very model this law would disrupt.
Indeed, you want ecosystem diversity. You don't want every operator of a pool of root servers doing everything the same way because if someone figures out how to disrupt those operations and if everyone is operating the same way then poof - they all fall down.
Top down planning/regulation has it's place, but it's hardly the solution - and brings zero value to this topic.
Indeed, in 40 years the model has worked just fine - surviving technical, political and legal challenges and no one was the wiser. There is zero in this law that would improve upon that record.
- anticristi 5y agoDevil's advocate here. The DNS root servers worked, but don't quite feel up to speed with regulations. AFAIU, the root servers still receive FQDN and IP, which is not GDPR-friendly and technically unnecessary. Also, I'm not sure what happens if a crazy US president decided to disrupt .eu. While regulating root DNS servers might be undesirable now, it sure feels like the right moment to start the conversation.
- khuey 5y agoThe US government is no longer in control of the root servers, and even if it were, I doubt .eu would be at the top of the target list.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- _-david-_ 5y ago> AFAIU, the root servers still receive FQDN This part is solved with qname minimisation.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago> AFAIU, the root servers still receive FQDN and IP, which is not GDPR-friendly and technically unnecessary. This is only a problem for a tiny fraction of queries. The records served by the root servers can be cached (e.g. .com has a TTL of 2 days), so most queries don't even hit the root servers. It's a much bigger problem for the registry nameservers.
- KronisLV 5y agoHere's a naïve question - why couldn't the institution that's supposed to do the planning/regulation be the one that's obligated to provide the necessary resources for the parties being regulated, if they lack them themselves? > The non-profit root server operators might have to leave the EU and put up active measures so that no Europeans can use their root servers. They can’t afford to do all the paperwork for NIS 2. For example, if a university cannot afford to file the necessary paperwork, why couldn't the EU be the ones that are obligated to send someone over to handle the legwork and help them out? I know that something like that would never work for reasons that the lovely people here would hopefully point out (since i don't really deal with the legal stuff that often), but here's another example - i live in Latvia, and the government actually helps me to fill out and pay my taxes somewhat. Granted, it only handles the most common cases and calculations in the form of a self-service web app, but if a lot of paperwork is just forms anyways, why not apply it to other domains? In contrast, telling a university that they'll need to invest significant time and resources into something that they simply cannot do on their own, knowing the implications of this, doesn't appear fair.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zyamada 5y agoHaving worked at a university, but not in this domain, my 2-cents is that what they're trying to say is that can't afford the paperwork in the context of the the associated internal political war that commonly comes along with trying to do anything like this in academia.
- krageon 5y agoEven without the "like this" in the last sentence this would be accurate.
- andrey_utkin 5y agoI have an even more naive question: if EU wants a secure and well-overseen root services operator, why don't they spin up their own one? They can do whatever they fancy for their own money.