-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to
prospective numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the
suggested propositions rises any concern ?
In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file
if they want to be identical? What would happen if one was hacked? (I
note that this is the current situation of the Internet where two
deliveries of the same file are proposed).
Hasn't this idea been killed enough? I am a newbie on the Internet
(only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion.
It's a bad idea, for more reasons that I will bother to write down. If
you want an exhaustive answer, I suggest you ask SECSAC.
The same, no one comments on secondary source for the root, meaning
that the ICANN unicity is not an intrisic need, provided the
different root files collectors strive to collect the real data from
the TLD Managers (who are authoritative, while the root file is not).
Not a problem to anyone?
See above.
No one either comment on private TLDs, or the creation of a virtual
TLD used through Host.txt only. No one objects to the generalization
of users resolvers, the possible resulting dissemination of the root
file to all the users and their resulting ability to fight an ICANN
redelegation what is a major issue at WSIS.
Hosts.txt only is a decision by the local system operator. They are
free to handle name resolution as they want (well). NIS, NIS+, DNS, or
Hosts.txt. If I where them, I would use the same DNS as all the rest of
us.
My opinion is that his entire thread, is a reiteration that most people
while learning IP and the Internet, got thought was a bad idea - and
why. It simply lack basic understandings.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBP8z0jqarNKXTPFCVEQLYCQCfRugvPQNUgkkkj6Hvz8YVV6/D1IwAoPSA
z419eHzBgftprNgk+RCyD1bn
=QBkK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----