>> 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. And Most of us "have better things to do with out rime" than worry about brand x or brand y of IM. But that doesn't mean we should say "therefore nobody should work in it" as though this were a technical, not political issue. >> 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. Nor should they pretend they don't exist. -- /"\ ASCII RIBBON / richard@vrx.net sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us \ / CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html X HTML MAIL / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org / \ AND POSTINGS / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices