I agree that the "directory services" field is not what ORSC is working on. I also agree that if someone wants to solve "the directory service problem", they are not going to get any opposition from me. Just please do not convert the DNS into a directory! Cheers...\Stef At 9:09 PM -0700 7/29/02, Peter Deutsch wrote: >Hey John, > >John C Klensin wrote: > > > > Peter, > > > > IMO, a good summary of some of the real issues. Let me add one > > more piece of the story, which I'm surprised you didn't comment > > on.... > >Well, I *was* trying to keep it short, since I've an >undeserved reputation for *long* postings... ;-) > > > > > ... 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. Those > > efforts have gotten good responses from some parts of the > > community. > >Hmm, do you have a pointer for this? > > > > > But, from others, including (apparently) most of the "alternate > > root", "multiple root", and "superroot", crowds, the response is > > "more TLDs" or "more root choices, but ICANN is expected to > > cooperate and accept whatever names we come up with first", or > > things that are semantically indistinguishable from "the only > > problem with a single root is that I should be in charge, not > > ICANN". And that leads some of us to start wondering what > > species of snake is being used to produce all of that fragrant, > > multipurpose, oil. > >I was actually making a conscious effort not to get into >this aspect of the debate, since I believe that it's been >too emotionally charged and in such an atmosphere it's too >easy to paint everyone with the same brush. There are >certainly a few folks in the alternative root movement that >I would not want to share a cabin with on a long sea voyage, >but I also like and respect a number of folks who happen to >think multiple roots are an eminently fine idea. Frankly, I >don't have any problem with the concept myself, but I can >justify this to myself now I've concluded that it's an >"apples and hand grenades" issue. I don't want to break the >legacy DNS, I just happen to want to do stuff that the >legacy DNS folks don't want in their root. > >I know this idea makes a lot of folks spit coffee all over >their keyboards, but all it really means is that the >fundamentals of DNS are more useful than the basic service >people are using it for right now. So maybe we need to be >talking about extending the protocol, maybe even asking for >a new port number, but in any event I believe it's time the >IETF recognizes that it's time to move beyond what are >really the politics of ICANN and focus on the technical >issues surrounding extending the current technologies to >make them more useful. If we do that without touching the >legacy systems for now, fine but this would imply the need >to set up some alternative roots for experimentation and >proof of concept. Pity that such a notion has become *so* >overloaded with political implications but it's time to look >beyond that, or sit back and tell our users that Google is >as good as it's going to get.... ;-) > > - peterd > > > > > > > > > regards, > > john > > > > --On Monday, 29 July, 2002 19:15 -0700 Peter Deutsch > > <pdeutsch@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > g'day, > > > > > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:11:57 PDT, Einar Stefferud > > >> <Stef@thor.nma.com> said: > > >> > > >> > ORSC was highly successful in this effort, until ICANN > > >> > chose to collide with one of our ORSC pre-existing TLDs, > > >> > and the refusal of ICANN (and others such as IETF, IAB and > > >> > ISOC) to recognize this > > >> > > >> So what you're saying is that if there's no coordination, > > >> there's a problem. > > >>... > > > > > Works? Yeah, maybe for some definition of "works", in that > > > people can give money to more than one entity to get a > > > string into .COM, but is that really solving the problem > > > ordinary users actually want solved? Last time I went to get > > > a new domain name, I was down to either choosing words from > > > an Old English dictionary (I went with "gydig", which means > > > I think I'm either "insane, or touched by the Gods" :-) or > > > explaining to folks "No, that really is a domain name, even > > > if it doesn't end in .COM". When I read "works" it sort of > > > reminds me of that old saw about "the operation was a > > > success, but the patient died". > > >... > > > Maybe there really *are* two different debates here. We seem > > > to be guilty of simultaneously complaining about the threat > > > inherent in attempts at building multiple roots, while > > > telling folks to keep their mits off the current root. Now, > > > this position makes sense only if there's really a single > > > possible outcome here (keep the current DNS name resolution > > > functionality with no extensions), but what if what those > > > other folks are doing really doesn't belong in the current > > > DNS tree anyways, but is useful to some folks? Shouldn't we > > > be *encouraging* them to take their work off out of the DNS > > > tree? > > > > > > If we agree that the DNS works eminently fine for its > > > intended purpose, but would be threatened by instability if > > > we were to allow the sort of > > > innovation/experimentation/fooling around that some folks > > > would like to see, then let's pack 'em off to "directory > > > service land", where people operate additional services to > > > serve communities of size n, for n less than the whole > > > Internet. Now, if they did that couldn't we even let them > > > talk about what hooks might be useful to allow communication > > > from such services back on planet Internet? This would seem > > > to bring this debate back to something like "how do we tie > > > together multiple, sometimes disparate services using a > > > single communications system"? Hopefully, we can agree that > > > such a question is in scope for this community, whereas > > > "when do we get more TLDs" is clearly so far out that it > > > just makes us tired yelling about it.... > > > > > >-- > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Deutsch pdeutsch@gydig.com > Gydig Software > > > That's it for now. Remember to read chapter 11 on the > implications of quantum mechanic theory for time travel > and be prepared to have been here last week to discuss. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------