On 1/7/2014 6:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, one might argue that choosing this kind of name space was a
political decision. I might buy that argument (I don't know). There's
good reason to suppose that there was at least some organizational
principle behind the decision in favour of a hierarchical namespace.
As many folks remember, around 15 years ago, when ICANN was being
formed, there was a strong constituency in favor of more than one root.
The problem with their arguments was that either their designs ensured
chaotic name ambiguity, or they were simply moving the single root to an
automated mechanism rather than an administered process.
So the 'political' decisions about the existing DNS technology have been
such things as ensuring name uniqueness, administrative scaling and
query scaling. The design of the DNS and the design of its
administrative structure derive from these operational requirements.
None of this is really 'political' in the way that people tend to use
the term. In practical terms, there hasn't been any choice. No
alternative design has been put forward that is viable at scale.
IMO, to be meaningfully political, a decision needs to represent
meaingful choice among significantly different alternatives.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net