Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
"CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting or inconsistent records,
One doesn't need to read further to observe that this is a broken
namespace.
An alternate view is that one does not need to read further to note that
this scheme calls for coordination at the top of the naming hierarchy,
just like any other scheme needs to, in order to be viable.
Whether the coordination is performed by a central authority or a
cooperative society of participants is entirely irrelevant, to the
underlying requirement of preventing name conflicts.
Yes. And I should add that I didn't mean to attack CoDoNS as if
it was a bad piece of work. I meant to promote the notion that
substituting one way of guaranteeing namespace uniqueness for another
really doesn't change anything fundamental, if we still have to admit
the possibility of "conflicting or inconsistent records".
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf