If you can come up with an efficient, "fair" and trusted process for a unitary name space on domain principles (domains of scope. trees.) that doesn't confront collisions over desires for labels at arbitrary points in the tree, and of essential 'centrality' in decision making logic over things especially the apex of the tree, computer science would like to know.
Meantime, we have this tree, and we have a lot of documentation around this tree, and we have a current bilateral view between two agencies on this tree, and we're discussing this tree, in the context of one of those agencies: we're using IETF infrastructure, IETF processes, IETF methodologies, to discuss that tree. I agree pejorative language doesn't help, and I share responsibility for its over-use. I apologize for intemperate use of language. Peer to peer, hash based, location-id separator, <other unknown> all discuss concepts which collide in this model. It might surprise you to know, that outside of this conversation I hold different views about social equity, and who should or should not be vested with authority in names. I try to draw distinctions between what I think as a consumer, and a user, and what I observe from my training and praxis. I hold a unitary name space as a public good in very high regard. I think p2p models, and models of probabalistic or hash naming are interesting, but they wind up needing to map coherently to DNS names. What I depart from, in the conversation, is how high in the DNS tree that coherence has to vest. A lot of your commentary goes to procedural fairness. I won't pretend we don't have a problem there. I think you, and others in development of novel systems have a right to feel severely disadvantaged by process as it stands. -G On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM, hellekin <helle...@gnu.org> wrote: > On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote: >> >> As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology >> problematic) >> > > I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a > technical context. > >> the so called waste pile of usurped names >> > > Therefore this is also a problem to call names-used-in-the-wild > "usurped" or "squatted", because it says that there's a central body > that assigns names, and it defines who can use them, with the > exclusivity of any other approach. I know this idea may sound funny to > a lot of people given the missions of IANA and ICANN, and the existence > of trademarks and so-called 'intellectual property', but to me, having > an authority over who can use what names *in general*--as opposed to > particular, specific cases (e.g., trademarks)--is akin to the Novlang > Committee. > > Names in the DNS are sanctioned by IANA/ICANN, and those names are > 'legitimate' in the context of Internet names. That doesn't mean at all > that names not sanctioned by ICANN are illegitimate, or that names > covered by trademarks are more 'legitimate' than 'unprotected' names. > This is all a matter of transactions and legal-firepower. But from > there to legitimate this transactional-belligerent perspective over any > other (historical, cultural, incidental, ontogenetic, etc.) seems to me > problematic and abusive. > > == > hk > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
