At 08:50 AM 7/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
However, back in the real world, the existing unique root works just fine.
Sure, and ICANN is a good thing (tm)
And ketchup is a vegetable.
This aint rocket science, and keeping track of namesystems is
about as complicated as keeping track of port numbers.
--
/"\ ASCII RIBBON / richard(_at_)vrx(_dot_)net
sexton(_at_)mejac(_dot_)palo-alto(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us
\ / CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
X HTML MAIL / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org
/ \ AND POSTINGS / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices