At 08:50 AM 7/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >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. >However, back in the real world, the existing unique root works just fine. Sure, and ICANN is a good thing (tm) And ketchup is a vegetable. This aint rocket science, and keeping track of namesystems is about as complicated as keeping track of port numbers. -- /"\ 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