[ga] would you be a rocket scientist

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
your point is well taken. I may only conclude that you are not a
rocket scientist. A rocket scientist instinctive response would be
"let see how I can match that nasty stupid demand of the market".

Actually in this DNS issue, a part from releasing your fatherly grip
from the DNS control, what is concerning you is that the DNS
concept works better than you thought and supports things you
did not think of. IMHO the reason why is that the DNS is an
immemorial, proven and widely used concept ( http://kent.crispin )
while you tend to confuse it with BIND because of the way RFC
have described it.

Should you be a rocket scientist you would not hesitate in
considering a new release in the DNS/BIND RFC description
based upon different premises: the one which have proven to
work. May I suggest you something: stop thinking of the DNS
as a database and think of it as a progressive filter, a logic
router towards a pertinent information server. From wherever you
are. To help you in that thinking, reverse the DNS files. The
root in the last line. I am sure that if you give this some
considerations you will be surprised at the simplicity, the
power and the possibilities of the concept and of its current
of future implications.

The DNS is NOT hierarchical: it is multi-layered and of
progressive access. It is also a very convenient image of
the whole Internet and of our world: a good point to get your
own understanding and metaphors of the me/we model.

Actually you do not protect the DNS but the top/down and
bottom/up XIXth century models we lived with for decades,
what creates the AmerICANN most of its problem while
trying to organize a system which works under a different
model (the consensus is a only one of the idiosyncrasies
of the model)

Progressively - and among others through the Internet we
are entering a new world based on a me/- (me, you, we)
logic. Rather than to freeze the DNS, share in unlocking it!
It is a very simple, robust and yet powerful concept for the
future. Truly.

If you are a rocket scientist, just think all the applications
you may find in data retrieval systems from the DNS solution
used in the unlocked way of mine. Very appealing.

Jefsey


On 07:08 27/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
>
>Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
>surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".
>
> >  However, the
> > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
>
>Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
>doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
>got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
>bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.
>
>The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
>science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
>despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
>aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
>
>(*) for those who may not be familiar with the idiom, "rocket science"
>is a slang phrase meaning "truly esoteric and specialized technical
>speciality".
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>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

--
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