Mark Andrews wrote:
They are still a problem whether you think they should exist
or not. The problem is that they are added unilaterally
and people using them expect everyone else to be able to
resolve them as well. The method of adding them was wrong
as it does not scale. If every language added the equivalent
you would have hundreds of sets of nameservers that you
would have to track down and add to your own configuration.
I agree with you - it does not scale well - over time root which fail to
carry the chinese TLD labels will get swamped with quereis. However -
I completely disagree with your view that the method used to add them
was wrong. It was very right for the chinese to act unilaterally. The
alterative, open, or public set the standards for TLD holders and root
system to act unilaterrally.
The chinese approached ICANN some five years ago to have their TLDs
included in the IANA root. ICANN gave them the finger and they much
like the open root TLD operators gave ICANN the boot. Now mind you the
chinese have a much bigger boot then the open roots - so I anticipate
this is a much more painful experience.
Give my luv to Paul
Joe Baptista
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf