> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > There are several crucial attributes that are hard to > replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query > for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same > answer everyone else should get. > This is the problem with "alternate" roots -- depending on > where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also > what differentiates it from a search engine -- my > applications don't know how to make choices. Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people do not want to connect to the rest of the world. I have a private zone set up in my house on .local for testing. I am sure there are similar military nets. I have no idea why anyone would prefer (say) .gprs over .gprs.arpa or the like. Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do try to do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude .ca). > Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the > appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to > "Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine rather than a name,service pair to a machine. Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that try to change this but people continue to insist on the original architecture as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the shouting that has gon on around attempts to store policy information in the DNS. Today a DNS name is a conceptual relationship to a collection of services. > Finally, you need locality: people within an organization > must be able to create their own names. Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces hierarchy where none exists. There is a distinction between commercial, educational and non-profit enterprises but it is not a very important one. It is certainly not important enough for them to require separate name spaces. Different TLDs for different countries is also kinda bogus. If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much information people cared to put in it. We would work out some other scheme for load balancing etc. The .edu/.com scheme really reflects the NSF funding criteria of the day. However the fact remains that we are not redesigning DNS from scratch and it has largely been fixed already - if we choose to recognize the fact. One point made by Michael I think people should really take account of: >What I find humorous is that this community's default position >seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals >at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what >you'd think we're good at.... This is international power politics at the highest level. The real issue here is not governance of the Internet, that is just a convenient pretext. There is a diplomatic battle going on here that threatens to become a real war. Diplomats prefer to avoid wars so they invented 'protocol' which at certain times mean that the participants go off and find something they can fight over that allows them to demonstrate the stakes and their positions with less risk of actual fighting. This is of course the main reason why most people would prefer to avoid that type of involvement. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf