David,
I don't subscribe to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
In message <000c01be682f$07d7fe20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Schutt" writes:
> When we registered speco.com, we could not have the entry made
> without the accompanying name resolution service(advertising).
That's not advertising.
That will be addressed by having several (shared) registries feeding
the root name servers.
> So I don't see how we are not advertising it. When name service is
> provided in this context, it is something like publishing, (I know,
> analogies bad, I just don't know how else to expalin it) in that the
> knowledge of the existence of the conglomeration of hardware and
> services known as speco.com is being made available to the entire
> world.
The DNS is queried only on request. And NSI doesn't hand out the
complete zone files any more. A step that I aggree with.
Publishing something is not advertizing, per se. (As an example, US
print media is required to publish their circulation numbers. An
editorial (advertorial :-)-O) plugging the numbers (number # in the
market etc, even without any embellishments) would be advertising of
the same facts.
Advertising starts with putting it on the web.
> Whatever the reason for the creation of the DNS, its usefullness has
> grown far beyond the simple mapping of names to IP addresses. Think
> about an MX record. It doesn't just map name to number, it also
> implies the existence of a particular service (email).
Actually, MX does not map to a number it maps to another name. In
fact, MX is a *REQUIRED* service. :-)-O
Whether it is useful or not, doesn't mean you have to purchase what
you already own.
> There is an even more subtle synergy between domain names and IP
> addresses. A domain name is what allows the identifier function to
> be seperated from the locator function of an IP address. IP
> addresses can then just represent the physical topololgy of a
> network, which can and does change rapidly. This allows the concept
> of a 'network' to evolve from a specific collection of wires and
> hardware to a more general grouping of hardware and software
> services, with the glue binding it all together being administrative
> control, and, of course, the name.
You have just, and very eloquently, defined the technical functions of
the DNS.
> The system that we have now is very close to supporting this, but
> there are still some problems relating to how various functions are
> bundled. There is an assumption that registering a name implies that
> I want name resolution service available to the entire world, but
> that's not necessarily true.
The Internet is a network of networks.
You connect yours to others. The DNS is a technical service to make
yours seen by others. There were others in the past (notebook etc)
there will be others in the future.
> When I register a domain name, I do it because I wish to use that name
> without worrying about a collision with some other entity using the same
> name. Since the function of the name is to describe administrative groupings
> of hardware and software resources for the benefit of the administrators and
> the users of the network, how name resolution service is handled will depend
> on the user base. What's overlooked in the current system is that everything
> about the network, including the user base, changes and evolves over time.
> The only thing that is binary (on, off) is the existence of the network
> described by the name. Today, the user base is local. Tommorow the user base
> may be the entire world, and I'd want everyone to be able to resolve the
> name. Maybe the following year the network will be isolated again, for
> whatever crazy reason I come up with.
And? What's the point?
> I want to identify my network, and I want that identity to be
> stable, no matter how the network is used. Changing the name of the
> network really means taking it apart and gluing it back together
> again, as the name is a large part of the definition, and that's a
> whole lot of work.
But, the fact remains, you don't have to PURCHASE the name. It's yours
in the first place . The rest, is administratrivia (eg who gets a name
first, conflict ressolution).
> What bugs me is I can't see any reason why the current system can't
> support this.
It DOES support this. But people like the K*nt, and others, are doing
their best to destroy the DNS. For whatever motivation, some of it of
course, quite understandeable, monetary.
el
