>OIDs. And trying to do so would make DNS URIs far more complex than
>they need to be - for no real benefit. For instance, how do you
>assign names to the alternate roots?
By specifying the root name as a prefix?
That does nothing more than define a (new) single root, on top of the set
of alternate DNS naming systems.
Hence, it violates the model that the alternate root efforts claim to
support, namely one of independence.
I agree that alternate roots are not part of DNS as long as you
contrain your universe to be the ICANN/USG published set of DNS
That is like saying that mars is not part of earth, as long as you
constrain your reference to this planet.
The DNS has some definitions associated with it. One of them is a single
root and administration of that root has been handled by IANA/ICANN since
The alternate root activities chose to work independently of the
established DNS. They were free to do that and are free to continue to do
What they are NOT free to do is claim that, somehow, there is any
obligation to impose a coordination effort between them and the IANA/ICANN
DNS. Laying a naming and registration system on top of the set of
different DNS-like services would constitute such an imposition. It would,
in reality, be defining a new root. One that brings the set of alternate
roots under a single, coordinated naming and registration scheme.
Independence of naming is independence of naming. If they want a URI, they
should define one. For themselves. They should not insist on post hoc
integration with the IANA/ICANN root.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850