ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process



Todd,

you should propose thins in the IETF discussing these proposasl here does
no good because all the work to define URIs or URLs is done in the IETF.

-rick

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, 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).
>
> The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines since
> these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>
> To: "Ga" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
>
>
> > >
> > > > Todd and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I still think that ICANN's biggest political and technical hurdle to
> > > leap is
> > > > > really what to do about other ROOT's.This may seem like a simple
> > > business
> > > > > question but it has far reaching ramifications that stretch
> throughout
> > > the
> > > > > entirety of what we know as the Internet.
> > > >
> > > >   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> > > > They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> > > > they can be totally diverse.
> > >
> > > OK but on who's address space, and how could one bridge lookups between
> the
> > > two DNS Roots?. My take is that DNS and BIND fail this clearly but that
> the
> > > Search Engines may hold some hope if they can get their bad links cut to
> a
> > > minimum and provides regularly pruned lookup services.
> > >
> >
> > We were working something called MULTI-BIND, a version of BIND that
> > would allow a server operator to do just that. It would even allow the
> selection
> > of a particular version of a TLD over another one. This way, a server
> operator
> > could still use the USG root by default and then add in the non-colliding
> contents
> > of another root server network, or just specific TLDs by specifying name
> servers
> > for them.
> >
> > Alas, we got sidetracked onto other projects. Point is, its possible and
> another way
> > around ICANN.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

--
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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>