On 7/26/02, Keith Moore wrote:
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>:
"alternate DNS roots" aren't part of DNS. if someone
wants to propose a URN based on a DNS-like system with
its own root zone, they're free to do so and see if
they can get support for it. For that matter if
someone wants to propose a URN based on some other
naming system that doesn't look like DNS they're free
to do that also.
But trying to make "alternate DNS roots" fit into a DNS
URI scheme is like trying to make OIDs or some other
naming scheme fit into a DNS URI scheme. We don't
need to do that - there's a separate scheme for 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?
great. then people can start arguing about who gets to
maintain the set of names for ... er... what were
formally known as roots. most of us have better things to
do with our time.
Or you could avoid the entire mess, by simply placing any
alternate "root" that you want to use inside the scope of
a DNS domain.
You have to register the name, and all of the references
are ever so slightly longer.
But it sure is a lot simpler for everyone else.
In particular, why should names that *are* part of the DNS
hierarchy be made longer?