On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Sorry, but you are wrong on some of your facts here.
'Wrong' is a such a strong word.
I am aware that besides the plug-ins, new.net is offering an alternate
root. My original email said "through a browser plugin or messing with
client DNS settings or reconfiguring internal name servers," which I think
covers all the possiblities. I said that their domains were arranged
under new.net because to a person using root-servers.net they are, and
that is the accepted standard.
My message was not intended to be a technical treatise on the Domain Name
System, and I do apologize if I mislead anyone. But somehow I doubt it.
My intent was to explain to people who might not understand that this
enterprise is working completely outside ICANN, IANA, IETF, and the other
organizations that are attempting to keep the "Inter" in "Internet." It
requires complete dependence on New.net (who makes no representations or
warranties of any kind whatsoever --
http://www.new.net/read_only_registration.tp).
I do not think that New.net makes it at all clear that this a proprietary
setup and that the 'domains' that you purchase from them may not work for
the majority of Internet users -- and the messages that David Dorey pasted
tend to support that.
Their technology is even "patent-pending." What are they tring to patent
exactly, the type hint; directive in BIND or the search directive in
resolv.conf? Or is it a "Technique for Circumventing Established
Standards via the Manipulation of Marketing Personnel?" Ricoculous.
--
...Craig
