RE: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > I'd suggest: a1001, a1002, a2003, ... z9999
> >
> > There's 25,000 of those.  If we need more, I'd lengthen the
> > numeric part.
> 
> Karl,
> 
> Then what would be the point? Why not simply use the IP address and drop the
> DNS altogether?

DNS names are stable, they don't change when IP addresses change due to
network reconfigurations, dynamic address assignments, NAT, etc.

Also, DNS names are beginning to be used as names of services -- with the
actual traffic being directed to any of a number of servers, possibly
servers that are located in very different locations and with very
different IP addresses.

It's the mnemonic part of DNS names that got us in all this hot water in
the first instance.  DNS names are simply not expressive enough to handle
all the human semantics we want to paint onto them.  That's why we need to
step back and use search engines to dig through lists of (attribute,
DNS-name) pairs and return lists of potential targets.

Systems like e-mail already strongly use such search engines - we tend to
call 'em personal mailing lists and they are often built into our own
personal mail composition tools - which merely indicates that "search
engine" doesn't mean something on the scale of an altavista or yahoo for
everything.

		--karl--