You can solve the problems in various ways (see Emin Gun Sirer's
message) but most of them create a "super-registry" on the top of R1
and R2 and you are back to the unique registry model.
This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will
cover lots of design alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric,
mutually distrusting and there exists no super-registry, yet there is a
way to establish whether R1 or R2 acquired the name first.
This is the problem of using complex and sophisticated
technical arguments against shared registy models. The fact
is that the domain naming service delegates exclusive control
over a subdomain to a single entity. From that model, companies
like IBM are assured total and exclusive control of the subdomain
ibm.com. If you change that model, then IBM ceases to have
such exclusive control.
I note that numerous organizations have taken an interesting
subdomain and used it to delegate sub-subdomains to other parties.
Such organizations can even share the sub-domain if they wish to.
But doing that infects the entire sub-tree of their domain with
the new model. In order to preserve the possibility that some
domain owners can have total and exclusive ownership we need
to maintain a single authoritative and exclusive owner of the
root.
Or in other words, if IBM wants to keep ibm.com then the root
must remain under the control of a single exclusive authority.
Fancy technology cannot change this.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf