-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to > prospective numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the > suggested propositions rises any concern ? > > In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file > if they want to be identical? What would happen if one was hacked? (I > note that this is the current situation of the Internet where two > deliveries of the same file are proposed).
Hasn't this idea been killed enough? I am a newbie on the Internet (only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion. It's a bad idea, for more reasons that I will bother to write down. If you want an exhaustive answer, I suggest you ask SECSAC. > The same, no one comments on secondary source for the root, meaning > that the ICANN unicity is not an intrisic need, provided the > different root files collectors strive to collect the real data from > the TLD Managers (who are authoritative, while the root file is not). > Not a problem to anyone? See above. > No one either comment on private TLDs, or the creation of a virtual > TLD used through Host.txt only. No one objects to the generalization > of users resolvers, the possible resulting dissemination of the root > file to all the users and their resulting ability to fight an ICANN > redelegation what is a major issue at WSIS. Hosts.txt only is a decision by the local system operator. They are free to handle name resolution as they want (well). NIS, NIS+, DNS, or Hosts.txt. If I where them, I would use the same DNS as all the rest of us. My opinion is that his entire thread, is a reiteration that most people while learning IP and the Internet, got thought was a bad idea - and why. It simply lack basic understandings. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBP8z0jqarNKXTPFCVEQLYCQCfRugvPQNUgkkkj6Hvz8YVV6/D1IwAoPSA z419eHzBgftprNgk+RCyD1bn =QBkK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
