Mark;
The phone system deals with switching current, line voltage syncronization,
levels and all sorts of probems you deal with in the analog realm. You
need a central authority in this case.
But, the Internet uses a completley differnet technology and got
to be as big as it is as a result of a structure that has no central
authority.
As for a replacement "system" the only other close example of
a large Internet namespace with a fight at the top level
is the usenet name space. Examples can be taken from there.
Key points were:
1) Net.* and Mod.*
2) "The great renaming"
3) Alt.
4) Usenet II
There's a fairly rich history on the net. Usenet seems to be self
documenting :-)
If I were to editorially summaryize the 20 years of namespace
development it would look something like this: "in the beginning
a couple of guys invented it. They used two top level names. This
didnt' scale well, so a bunch of guys though up 7 top level names
and added some rules and things got a little opressive. It was
impossible to get a new top level name. Alt was created, and there
were no rules. The usenet II project sort of went halfway - "it
should be hard to get a top level name but it shouldn't
be impossible", "rules, not tools" (ie, no new software). In
this model, every node in the hierarchical namespace has
a manager; the top level managament is steered by a commmunity
censensus-formed board. It works well.
(insert obligatory quote about ignoring history)
At 08:28 PM 7/27/99 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
>Jim,
>
>It is a commonplace, I think, that if you can disprove the phone system analogy
>below with sufficient force, or a sufficiently powerful replacement analogy, you
>win. However, noone has done so. The US PTO, the large telcos, the lawyers and bits
>of government involved, have to hang a hook on some regulatory precedent to give
>them a feel for they territory they are dealing with.. They see phone system
>deregulation and the games that can be played with the numbers and 1-800 names as
>that precedent. They're reasonable people, but not visionaries. Give them a series
>of hooks and they will hang their coats on them in a civilised manner. However,
>revolutionary rhetoric leaves them cold. To cite two of the worn, but valid clich�s
>that are known territory, (i) the best solution does not necessarily win, aka
>Betamax; (ii) well-intentioned people working consensually and democratically do
>not produce good solutions aka OSI. There's probably about to be (iii) technical
>innovation is always stifled by the genius that produced it aka Internet, unless
>the creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system into
>existence can be marshalled to demonstrate the difference of that system from the
>metaphors that are being forced upon it.
>
>MM
>
>> Jim Dixon wrote:
>> >
>> > > I find the analogy with the phone system (as you present it) not fully
>> > > applicable, as the phone number is a "key" in the system, and therefore
>> > > unique due to the way that the system is built, while the domain name is an
>> > > "attribute" of the unique key (the IP address), and therefore could be
>> > > duplicated.
>> >
>> > I don't want to dwell on pseudo-technical side-issues but:
>> >
>> > You are simply wrong. You have domain names that map into multiple IP
>> > addresses (round-robin DNS) and Web servers with many domain names mapping
>> > into one IP address. The DNS is not 1:1 and it's not 1:N. It is N:N.
>> >
>> > The telephone directory system and the DNS are two very different things;
>> > a telco background does not qualify you to pontificate on Internet issues.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Dixon Managing Director
>> > VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Member of Council Telecommunications Director
>> > Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
>> > http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
>> > tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
>> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
>> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>--
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>UK tel/fax: 0044.1273.474894 CH tel/fax: 0041.22.363.8800/1 FR tel/fax:
>0033.450.20.94.92
>"Reality is an agreement between partners, preferably consensual, usually painful."
>Koskas Josmarian: unpublished letter, 1932
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
