Re: Trees have one root

I agree that the "directory services" field is not what ORSC is working on.

I also agree that if someone wants to solve "the directory service 
problem", they are not going to get any opposition from me.
Just please do not convert the DNS into a directory!   Cheers...\Stef

At 9:09 PM -0700 7/29/02, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> John C Klensin wrote:
>  >
>  > Peter,
>  >
>  > IMO, a good summary of some of the real issues.   Let me add one
>  > more piece of the story, which I'm surprised you didn't comment
>  > on....
>
> Well, I *was* trying to keep it short, since I've an
> undeserved reputation for *long* postings... ;-)
>
>
>
>  > ...  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.  Those
>  > efforts have gotten good responses from some parts of the
>  > community.
>
> Hmm, do you have a pointer for this?
>
>
>
>  > But, from others, including (apparently) most of the "alternate
>  > root", "multiple root", and "superroot", crowds, the response is
>  > "more TLDs" or "more root choices, but ICANN is expected to
>  > cooperate and accept whatever names we come up with first", or
>  > things that are semantically indistinguishable from "the only
>  > problem with a single root is that I should be in charge, not
>  > ICANN".  And that leads some of us to start wondering what
>  > species of snake is being used to produce all of that fragrant,
>  > multipurpose, oil.
>
> I was actually making a conscious effort not to get into
> this aspect of the debate, since I believe that it's been
> too emotionally charged and in such an atmosphere it's too
> easy to paint everyone with the same brush. There are
> certainly a few folks in the alternative root movement that
> I would not want to share a cabin with on a long sea voyage,
> but I also like and respect a number of folks who happen to
> think multiple roots are an eminently fine idea. Frankly, I
> don't have any problem with the concept myself, but I can
> justify this to myself now I've concluded that it's an
> "apples and hand grenades" issue. I don't want to break the
> legacy DNS, I just happen to want to do stuff that the
> legacy DNS folks don't want in their root.
>
> I know this idea makes a lot of folks spit coffee all over
> their keyboards, but all it really means is that the
> fundamentals of DNS are more useful than the basic service
> people are using it for right now. So maybe we need to be
> talking about extending the protocol, maybe even asking for
> a new port number, but in any event I believe it's time the
> IETF recognizes that it's time to move beyond what are
> really the politics of ICANN and focus on the technical
> issues surrounding extending the current technologies to
> make them more useful. If we do that without touching the
> legacy systems for now, fine but this would imply the need
> to set up some alternative roots for experimentation and
> proof of concept. Pity that such a notion has become *so*
> overloaded with political implications but it's time to look
> beyond that, or sit back and tell our users that Google is
> as good as it's going to get....  ;-)
>
>                                 - peterd
>
>
>
>
>
>  >
>  > regards,
>  >      john
>  >
>  > --On Monday, 29 July, 2002 19:15 -0700 Peter Deutsch
>  > <pdeutsch(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:
>  >
>  > > g'day,
>  > >
>  > > Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:11:57 PDT, Einar Stefferud
>  > >> <Stef(_at_)thor(_dot_)nma(_dot_)com>  said:
>  > >>
>  > >> > ORSC was highly successful in this effort, until ICANN
>  > >> > chose to collide with one of our ORSC pre-existing TLDs,
>  > >> > and the refusal of ICANN (and others such as IETF, IAB and
>  > >> > ISOC) to recognize this
>  > >>
>  > >> So what you're saying is that if there's no coordination,
>  > >> there's a problem.
>  > >>...
>  >
>  > > Works? Yeah, maybe for some definition of "works", in that
>  > > people can give money to more than one entity to get a
>  > > string into .COM, but is that really solving the problem
>  > > ordinary users actually want solved? Last time I went to get
>  > > a new domain name, I was down to either choosing words from
>  > > an Old English dictionary (I went with "gydig", which means
>  > > I think I'm either "insane, or touched by the Gods" :-) or
>  > > explaining to folks "No, that really is a domain name, even
>  > > if it doesn't end in .COM". When I read "works" it sort of
>  > > reminds me of that old saw about "the operation was a
>  > > success, but the patient died".
>  > >...
>  > > Maybe there really *are* two different debates here. We seem
>  > > to be guilty of simultaneously complaining about the threat
>  > > inherent in attempts at building multiple roots, while
>  > > telling folks to keep their mits off the current root. Now,
>  > > this position makes sense only if there's really a single
>  > > possible outcome here (keep the current DNS name resolution
>  > > functionality with no extensions), but what if what those
>  > > other folks are doing really doesn't belong in the current
>  > > DNS tree anyways, but is useful to some folks? Shouldn't we
>  > > be *encouraging* them to take their work off out of the DNS
>  > > tree?
>  > >
>  > > If we agree that the DNS works eminently fine for its
>  > > intended purpose, but would be threatened by instability if
>  > > we were to allow the sort of
>  > > innovation/experimentation/fooling around that some folks
>  > > would like to see, then let's pack 'em off to "directory
>  > > service land", where people operate additional services to
>  > > serve communities of size n, for n less than the whole
>  > > Internet. Now, if they did that couldn't we even let them
>  > > talk about what hooks might be useful to allow communication
>  > > from such services back on planet Internet? This would seem
>  > > to bring this debate back to something like "how do we tie
>  > > together multiple, sometimes disparate services using a
>  > > single communications system"? Hopefully, we can agree that
>  > > such a question is in scope for this community, whereas
>  > > "when do we get more TLDs" is clearly so far out that it
>  > > just makes us tired yelling about it....
>  >
>  >
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Peter Deutsch                       pdeutsch(_at_)gydig(_dot_)com
>     Gydig Software
>
>
>    That's it for now. Remember to read chapter 11 on the
>    implications of quantum mechanic theory for time travel
>    and be prepared to have been here last week to discuss.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------