--- Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb@rp.asomi.net> wrote: > On 7/30/02, Peter Deutsch wrote: > > >g'day Vint, > > > >"vinton g. cerf" wrote: > >> > >> ed, how would you suggest to resolve an email > address if > it returns ambiguous > >results? > > > >Maybe it's because I've spent part of the last week > poking > >around with synchronous serial protocols (I2C, > anyone?) but > >I think I may have a useful analogy here. > > > >You can divide serial communication protocols into > two > >classes, those which included embedded clocking and > those > >which rely on external clocking. One technique > isn't > >naturally superior to the other, and in fact there > are > >times you want to use one or the other, depending > upon > >design goals, circumstances, etc. > > > >We can think of the DNS service as commonly used > today as > >having "embedded clocking", in that the knowledge > of where > >to go to resolve a query is assumed as part of the > query. > >This is less flexible than having this knowledge > outside > >the query but it's simpler and does lead to a > simpler > >system. It also ties everyone together in ways > that, > >because of admittedly non-technical decisions made > outside > >the scope of this list, the resulting service is > running > >up against constraints a lot earlier than might be > >expected absent such decisions. Sadly, now that > >"steampowered.com" is gone I can wail all I want, > but I'm > >not getting it as long as we all use the same > resolvers > >(ie. the same "embedded clock"). This is the only > way to > >guarantee universality of response. > > > > A clock, whether embedded or external, is only > useful if it > is used by both the sender and all the recepients. > Given the > goal of having a single clock, there are indeed many > different ways to achieve the same result. > > You cannot, however, have two of the devices on an > I2C bus > decide that the clock the rest of the bus is using > is > defective, and just decide to use a better clock on > their > own. > > > Additionally, I think it is also important to > recognize that > domain names are now an integral part of trademarks > and have > meaning far beyond translating a name to an IP > address. > > Suppose the IETF were to somehow get the crazy idea > to > radically change the entire domain registration > system, and > as a result Disney no longer owned "disney.com"? > > Does anyone really think the courts would back the > IETF? > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com