At 05:44 30/07/02, John C Klensin wrote: >Several of us have made, and are making, significant efforts to get >directory-like "above DNS" services in place to address the clear user >need for more and better naming. Dear John, from this effort don't you think it could be time to review what should be DNS+ specs, I mean all the functions we should investigate and specify to be added "above DNS"? IMHO the "root" of that anlysis is to be what the user may expect/be confronted to, and this is to start with the URI (but I feel you dislike the idea?). >"the only problem with a single root is that I should be in charge, not >ICANN". I think this is a good summary, while my reading is more real and user oriented than your teasing:-). The DNS has been designed to be the Internet's namespace management tool, not the global namespace management tool it is used as a substitute for - hence the problems for field operators. Without going back to the ".arpa" delegation etc. just look at the continuity issue with real facts of today: China, EU, OSRC, New.net, E.164, X.121, nomenclatures, etc.. Dont't you think, folks, that time has come to review the golbal architecture of the DNS and to extend it to the consistent support of a reliable global namespace DNS.2? After 20 years is that necessarily stupid? Does proposing investigating it makes necessarily me a fool? But, please every sides, this should be totally clean sheet. jfc