RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 00:35 [=GMT+0200], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Roeland,

> >Not all of them will do that reliably. This introduces entropy into the
> >Inclusive Root system. Unlike cryptographic randomness, entropy is NOT good
> >for production systems.
> 
> That's what I would call "your own tecnical problem".
> If somebody will have unreliable information, ISPs will point to the others 
> who have.

> (incidentally, you have given the best explanation to the reason why almost 
> everybody points to the reliable (and consistent) root, not to potentially 
> unreliable, although "enhanced", surrogates)

This I do not understand. Roeland described a situation that might
exist in the future. How can this explain something that you already
say (and I doubt) to be true in the present? I did note 'potentially',
but would think that is not really what is on people's mind when they
think about using another root. More in general: It sounds like
marketing language to me: 'unreliable, surrogate'.

-- 
marc@pan.bijt.net

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html