Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: "Ga" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process


> At 05:42 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:
>
> >My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS
resolution
> >model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a
Root
> >Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
> >set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).
>
> There is a root zone indicated in the URI: this is the TLD. Roots are the
> registered name of a sub-namespace into the global namespace and in the
> orther sub-namespaces. In Internet words this translates to ".arpa" (for
> the arpa-sub namespace) and in "." (for the global namespace).

And .China in their namespace?

>
> As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces)
may
> originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent
> gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace,
> you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).

Who said that this practice was sane? Its not, and using a RFC from the IETF
is hardly a way of legitamixing something. Their practices are so corrupt
and flawed that itis my personal opinion  that anyone that relies on
anything from the IETF gets what they deserve.

>
>  From the very begining (1977) the ITU has been the place were the root
> names and TLD names got their legimacy from, through the respect of the
> International rules by FCC and by soverign states, and through X.121,
E.164
> standards.

yes -this is true - but here even the ITU is braindead to some extent.


> The special case from the Internet comes from the size taken by
> the its brainware development (people think they use it all over the
place)
> and from its lack of support of X.121 and E.164 until now. Things would
> have been quite easier to understand and manage otherwise.

AMEN to that. If people understood the actual fabric of the Internet and how
it got there.

>
> So called "alternate roots" are only an extension of the ".arpa" root as
> far as I read them, except China.

I disagree here - the alternate roots are just that in most cases. Alternate
sets of root servers. Some of them resolve a common ubset of thinggs and
then their own native extensions and that is a problem since most all of
that happens in what was considered the ICANN root.


> China is legitimately taking advantage
> from its national root. Leah ".biz" is claiming legitimacy from ".arpa" in
> comparing to the ".com" extended use.
> jfc

And Jefsey, that is the point.  And I am aware of the Multi-root facilities
but they take buyin to operate and that has not been forth coming. The
reality if that if NAT had been invented twn years earlier the DNS services
would have evolved vert differently as would the WWW.

>
>

--
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