Not trying to say you're wrong, I just observe that if there is an omnibar, and people type names into it, then there is a latent problem of ordering lookup, and deciding, in names and more than one namespace. Pretty much all the hard stuff stems from there IMO.
Names are hard. I think belief in the value of a unitary namespace as a commons probably always transcended the DNS specifically. We're just in denial what "it" is that we're fighting to defend. DNSSEC made this perhaps more focally clear: the specific value here is (in my opinion) in "which TA do you respect" and how that goes to "which name do you believe" which in this case goes to "which namespace do you prefer, deciding which names to accept" The unitary namespace belief, goes pretty rapidly to "how many distinct, independently managed TA do you want to respect proving names" as a cross product with "when, in which order, and why, and what do you do if they collide or disagree" If GNS is glued into DNS as a sub-arc over a label we understand, the possibility of some unity, fusion of purpose exists. If it squats, or is pushed aside, then that possibility disappears. To me, thats the problem. Not that we're finding this is ugly, or we like or dislike a reserved label like this, or want to never invoke the method we documented to do this thing, or hate ICANN or a hundred other things: its the loss of fusion of behaviour, if we don't come to some sense of agreement in what names are, respecting locators (and addresses) -G _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
