> > You can solve the problems in various ways (see Emin Gun Sirer's > > message) but most of them create a "super-registry" on the top of R1 > > and R2 and you are back to the unique registry model. > > This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will > cover lots of design alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric, > mutually distrusting and there exists no super-registry, yet there is a > way to establish whether R1 or R2 acquired the name first. This is the problem of using complex and sophisticated technical arguments against shared registy models. The fact is that the domain naming service delegates exclusive control over a subdomain to a single entity. From that model, companies like IBM are assured total and exclusive control of the subdomain ibm.com. If you change that model, then IBM ceases to have such exclusive control. I note that numerous organizations have taken an interesting subdomain and used it to delegate sub-subdomains to other parties. Such organizations can even share the sub-domain if they wish to. But doing that infects the entire sub-tree of their domain with the new model. In order to preserve the possibility that some domain owners can have total and exclusive ownership we need to maintain a single authoritative and exclusive owner of the root. Or in other words, if IBM wants to keep ibm.com then the root must remain under the control of a single exclusive authority. Fancy technology cannot change this. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf