Do you believe there is a difference between virus infected mail and a thread that is focused on multiple dns roots? Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Steven Garrett > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:49 AM > To: 'Keith Moore'; richard@vrx.net > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; steflist@thor.nma.com; brian@reid.org; > john@johnberryhill.com > Subject: please put a subject > > > Hi, > > If its not too big of a hassle, could you please put a > subject in the subject line. Many of us have mail that does > not have a subject line filtered out with anti-virus software, etc. > > Thank you > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:42 PM > To: richard@vrx.net > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; steflist@thor.nma.com; brian@reid.org; > john@johnberryhill.com > Subject: > > > > Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>: > > >"alternate DNS roots" aren't part of DNS. if someone wants to > > >propose a URN based on a DNS-like system with its own root > zone, they're free > > >to do so and see if they can get support for it. For > that matter if > > >someone wants to propose a URN based on some other naming > system that > > >doesn't look like DNS they're free to do that also. > > > > > >But trying to make "alternate DNS roots" fit into a DNS > URI scheme is > > >like trying to make OIDs or some other naming scheme fit into a DNS > > >URI scheme. We don't need to do that - there's a > separate scheme for > > >OIDs. And trying to do so would make DNS URIs far more > complex than > > >they need to be - for no real benefit. For instance, how do you > > >assign names to the alternate roots? > > > > By specifying the root name as a prefix? > > great. then people can start arguing about who gets to maintain the > set of names for ... er... what were formally known as roots. > most of us have better things to do with our time. > > > I agree that alternate roots are not part of DNS as long as you > > contrain your universe to be the ICANN/USG published set of > DNS names, > > but there are other things floating around the net that do > use the DNS > > protocols and do resolve names for people who choose to use them. > > there are other protocols on the net than those defined by > IETF standards, too. the fact that they exist does not > compel IETF to endorse them. > > Keith >