In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marc Schneiders writes:
>
>Which would have the same result as what you predict for a few hundred
>extra TLDs. The solution to the whole problem is of course to replace
>DNS by something better. I've heard more than a few times in the past,
>that it will be replaced by other functions/schemes/directories. Not
>that I am aware of any that seems to qualify for all the functions so
>far. Still, it would be quite on topic, if I may say so, to discuss
>what we should develop to do a better job. Obsolete it, if you cannot
>reform it?
>
>
I think that a requirements document for that would be entirely in
order. I suspect that no one system will be able to fulfill all
requirements.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
