In message <20021202205024(_dot_)U94626-100000(_at_)voo(_dot_)doo(_dot_)net>,
Marc Schneiders writes:
Which would have the same result as what you predict for a few hundred
extra TLDs. The solution to the whole problem is of course to replace
DNS by something better. I've heard more than a few times in the past,
that it will be replaced by other functions/schemes/directories. Not
that I am aware of any that seems to qualify for all the functions so
far. Still, it would be quite on topic, if I may say so, to discuss
what we should develop to do a better job. Obsolete it, if you cannot
reform it?
I think that a requirements document for that would be entirely in
order. I suspect that no one system will be able to fulfill all
requirements.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)