On 7/26/02, Keith Moore wrote: >> 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. > Or you could avoid the entire mess, by simply placing any alternate "root" that you want to use inside the scope of a DNS domain. You have to register the name, and all of the references are ever so slightly longer. But it sure is a lot simpler for everyone else. In particular, why should names that *are* part of the DNS hierarchy be made longer?