Dear Markus, to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.
At 21:16 23/04/04, Markus Stumpf wrote:
Hmmm ...
For instance, Internet addresses ending in ".mobi" would allow sites
built for the small screens of mobile phones.
For instance, Internet addresses (names?) ending in ".web" would allow sites supporting "world wide web" screens.
Ten years before Jon Postel should have started with ".ftp".
>From that reading I'd conclude they have no interest in registering
another domain like
ibm-mobile
miscrosoft-mobile
and so on, but rather have a new TLD where they could put
ibm.mobi
microsoft.mobi
and so on.
What about http://mobi.ibm.com
IMHO it fits with the right to left concept ? (and is in line with the structural semantics below). And costs nothing. And does not add any load to the DNS. Actually, I tend to think it is why the DNS was designed ?
here is no need for a .mobi (and why the hell don't they use .mobile) domain in order to deliver optimized web pages/sites.
There is a very simple standard way: mobi://ibm.com - it calls for serious technical discussions.
IMHO all these have their origin in that the "semantic web" is at best a slow starter and they try to put sematics into the web by adding "semantic TLDs".
"Semantic web" is only DNC (Domain Name Confusion) unless it uses a correct grammar (oherwise there will be nothing to sell even for the worst merchant). Grammar says the protocol is in the scheme, the intefaces in upper level names, domain name in the SLD and the interneted network in the TLD. Initially the internetted neworks were physically or geographically separated (Tymnet, telenet, ARPANET, CSNET, DOD, Transpac, Datex-P, PSS, etc.) while now they are mostly virtual (.com, .fr, .us, .int, .aero). But there a TLD is the name of a group of users or the flag of their common global interest. Not the size of the screen they use for a few months.
This is precesily because because a name is to designate a lof of different applications and machines that it is called a "domain" name. Or should we propose ".80" for all the connections to port 80 ?
Let not kill something which works!
There is nothing against a sub-scheme like http-mobi://ibm.com. While the "mobi" demand is a grammatical error as a TLD, it is perfectly legitimate as a request to the W3C. If the motivation is the service of the users, this should be the IAB/IETF advice.
If the only motivation is greed and market control, IETF cannot comment.But it can tell how large common interest zones should be managed by multiple virtual zones co-registries - because IDNA will need it, to start with.
So in the future we will see a lot more sponsored requests for new TLDs like >>insert index of yellow pages<<.
Right. But RFC 920/1591 do not think of them as commercial private ventures. They think of them as directory members trustees. I feel this is wise thinking : IANA is not in the business of deciding what is a yellow page entry (people sharing the same interest or the same location - not the same salesman). But there are a few technical words to help them working : non profit, to the benefit of the global community, equal access for everyone matching the charter, registrants self-governance, no generic names for specific groups. To avoid conflicts, because conflicts are just a sign of the users confusion.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf