Re: Trees have one root

At 05:44 30/07/02, John C Klensin wrote:
> Several of us have made, and are making, significant efforts to get 
> directory-like "above DNS" services in place to address the clear user 
> need for more and better naming.
Dear John,
from this effort don't you think it could be time to review what should be 
DNS+ specs, I mean all the functions we should investigate and specify to 
be added "above DNS"? IMHO the "root" of that anlysis is to be what the 
user may expect/be confronted to, and this is to start with the URI (but I 
feel you dislike the idea?).
> "the only problem with a single root is that I should be in charge, not 
> ICANN".
I think this is a good summary, while my reading is more real and user 
oriented than your teasing:-). The DNS has been designed to be the 
Internet's namespace management tool, not the global namespace management 
tool it is used as a substitute for - hence the problems for field 
operators. Without going back to the ".arpa" delegation etc. just look at 
the continuity issue with real facts of today: China, EU,  OSRC, New.net, 
E.164, X.121, nomenclatures, etc..
Dont't you think, folks, that time has come to review the golbal 
architecture of the DNS and to extend it to the consistent support of a 
reliable global namespace DNS.2?  After 20 years is that necessarily 
stupid? Does proposing investigating it makes necessarily me a fool?
But, please every sides, this should be totally clean sheet. jfc