Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

Dear Markus,
to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.

At 21:16 23/04/04, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> Hmmm ...
>     For instance, Internet addresses ending in ".mobi" would allow sites
>     built for the small screens of mobile phones.
For instance, Internet addresses (names?) ending in ".web" would
allow sites supporting "world wide web" screens.

Ten years before Jon Postel should have started with ".ftp".

> >From that reading I'd conclude they have no interest in registering
> another domain like
>     ibm-mobile
>     miscrosoft-mobile
> and so on, but rather have a new TLD where they could put
>     ibm.mobi
>     microsoft.mobi
> and so on.
What about http://mobi.ibm.com
IMHO it fits with the right to left concept ? (and is in line with the 
structural semantics below). And costs nothing. And does not add any load 
to the DNS. Actually, I tend to think it is why the DNS was designed ?
> here is no need for a .mobi (and why the hell don't they use .mobile)
> domain in order to deliver optimized web pages/sites.
There is a very simple standard way: mobi://ibm.com - it calls for serious 
technical discussions.
> IMHO all these have their origin in that the "semantic web" is at best
> a slow starter and they try to put sematics into the web by adding
> "semantic TLDs".
"Semantic web" is only DNC (Domain Name Confusion) unless it uses a correct 
grammar (oherwise there will be nothing to sell even for the worst 
merchant). Grammar says the protocol is in the scheme, the intefaces in 
upper level names, domain name in the SLD and the interneted network in the 
TLD. Initially the internetted neworks were physically or geographically 
separated (Tymnet, telenet, ARPANET, CSNET, DOD, Transpac, Datex-P, PSS, 
etc.) while now they are mostly virtual (.com, .fr, .us, .int, .aero). But 
there a TLD is the name of a group of users or the flag of their common 
global interest. Not the size of the screen they use for a few months.
This is precesily because because a name is to designate a lof of different 
applications and machines that it is called a "domain" name. Or should we 
propose ".80" for all the connections to port 80 ?
Let not kill something which works!

There is nothing against a sub-scheme like http-mobi://ibm.com. While the 
"mobi" demand is a grammatical error as a TLD, it is perfectly legitimate 
as a request to the W3C. If the motivation is the service of the users, 
this should be the IAB/IETF advice.
If the only motivation is greed and market control, IETF cannot comment.But 
it can tell how large common interest zones should be managed by multiple 
virtual zones co-registries - because IDNA will need it, to start with.
> So in the future we will see a lot more sponsored requests for new TLDs
> like >>insert index of yellow pages<<.
Right. But RFC 920/1591 do not think of them as commercial private 
ventures. They think of them as directory members trustees. I feel this is 
wise thinking : IANA is not in the business of deciding what is a yellow 
page entry (people sharing the same interest or the same location - not the 
same salesman). But there are a few technical words to help them working : 
non profit, to the benefit of the global community, equal access for 
everyone matching the charter, registrants self-governance, no generic 
names for specific groups. To avoid conflicts, because conflicts are just a 
sign of the users confusion.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf