Re: Trees have one root

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.
> 
> > 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.

Amusingly, Richard has, by suggesting that we should name the 
"alternate roots", just discovered why the whole "alternate root"
story is nonsense.

Since the DNS is a hierarchical namespace, and since trees have one
root, if you add "alternate roots", you then discover that you have 
to uniquely name them, i.e. insert a new unique root "above" the various 
"alternate roots". 

Or to put it another way, if we need several naming authorities, one for
each "alternate root", we're going to need a naming authority to uniquely
name those naming authorities.

Funny how you can't change mathematical facts, isn't it?

However, back in the real world, the existing unique root works just fine.

   Brian


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]