RE: [wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

I don't think Karl was proposing that we punt to the IETF, because I don't
think that there is anybody left that would seriously claim that there is a
technical limitation on the number of TLD's in the root, at least at the
level that would affect our discussions.

I believe you are responding to Mark C. Langston.

This also brings me back to an earlier point I was trying to make, that one
about position papers as input to workgroups.

I have read, over the course of the last few years, lots of material on why
an increase in TLD's would be a good thing, and even some arguments that at
the time made a reasonable case for a very large, almost unlimited number of
registries and TLDs.

I'm not sure that the few or no growth proponents have made their case in
quite the same way. Perhaps they don't realize that their point of view is
still so obscure, but it is. I would encourage them to clearly and concisely
state not only their position, but also the rationale behind it, the
supporting arguments.

I know that there will be a great hew and cry that 'we've done this before,
over and over', but in that case it should be easy to dust off old material
and update it for the current situation.

Even if working groups can't come to consensus, having the material
submitted to the group creates the public record that future efforts can
build on.

D Schutt


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 7:25 AM
To: Karl Auerbach; Mark C. Langston
Cc: wg-d@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts


I don't understand how it would work to try to hand this subject to the
IETF, Karl.  Technology makes many things possible,even human cloning. But
that doesn't make it a good idea just because it is possible.

Advice from the IETF is always valuable, as will be input from other
constituencies, such as the ISP Constituency, etc.

Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 5:02 PM
To: Mark C. Langston
Cc: wg-d@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts



> I propose that the "no consensus" report go forward, with a strong
> recommendation that the issue be remanded to the IETF

It would certainly be interesting to WG-C to know the answer to the
question: "How many top level domains can we stuff into a single root
system before it goes 'boom'."

However, that is a research question, not a standardization issue.  And it
is one that is highly sensitive to particular implementations of DNS
servers.

I would suggest that the best source of input for this would be from those
who have done actual research, those who actually operate root systems,
especially those with larger than standard numbers of TLDs, and those who
build server software capable of acting as a root.

Moreover, I would suggest that there is little technical dispute that the
number of TLDs could be easily expanded from the current number of about
250 to 500 or 1000 without any undesirable side effects.  And since I
don't think that WG-C is thinking of anything close to doubling the number
of current TLDs, it is a question that may be merely interesting and not
really one that needs a detailed answer for the next year or so.

In other words, I don't think we should suggest to WG-C that they
undertake to answer that question as a critical path item.

		--karl--