On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com wrote:
At 6:17 PM -0400 09/18/2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com wrote:
At 8:51 AM -0700 09/18/2003, Bill Manning wrote:
> ok, what about DoC & ICANN agreements w/ VSGN giving them
> the authority to continue to register in and publish
> the .COM and .NET domains? That looks like an entitlment to me.
Think it from a set theory perspective for a second. They have been
given the contract to populate a set (*registered* domains in COM. and
NET.) and publish that set (through DNS, ftp-able zone files, whois,
phone calls and so on). For this publication method, this behavior
eliminates the ability to determine whether the item is in or out of the
set. This has a couple of consequences:
DNS, Zone files, etc, are not acceptable means to query the set.
If you believe this, we are starting from such different views of the world
that there isn't much point in us trying to convince each other. Indeed,
I find it hard to understand what you think the set is for.
The "set" is the set of *registered* names. The proper and only way to
query this set is through whois.
DNS is a distributed database for the translation of domain names into
records that are useful for their respective purposes. DNS has nothing to
do with registration (getting registering, being registered, other
registration information and contacts, etc). Verisign generates zone
files from their registry information:
Registry -> DNS zone
But the following is invalid:
DNS zone -> Registration.
This is precisely the assumption that reverse DNS tries to make.
As I recall, the correct set-theory terms for this is "one-to-one but not
onto".
Does that make more sense?
--Dean