Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
on 12/2/2002 11:13 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote: Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you control the growth? 1/ no trademarks allowed 2/ competitive rebidding every two years 3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions) 4/ high entry fees IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs entirely. There isn't enough demand to support more than a few dozen popular TLDs. Generic TLDs are user-driven, with the market deciding which ones they want to use. Geographic TLDs are completely arbitrary and favor the functionary instead of the user. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
on 12/2/2002 11:53 AM Måns Nilsson wrote: I hope it would shut the nutcases arguing about new TLDs up, because they have been given what they so hotly desire (why escapes me, but I suppose they believe they'll make a big bag of money selling domain names. Good luck.) Technically, it is no problem to keep 500 delegations in sync -- even with higher demands on correctness than are made today, both for the root and most TLDs. However, there can only be one root. That is not up for discussion. (in case somebody thought I think so.) This is also my position entirely. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
submission
Dear sir I want to be a member of IETF ,How can I submit for a draft?Please could you send me more information?I look forward to hear from you as soon as possible Thank you so much.faithfully S.AhmadianDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: submission
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 02:51:03AM -0800, sara ahmadian allegedly wrote: Dear sir I want to be a member of IETF ,How can I submit for a draft? Please could you send me more information? I look forward to hear from you as soon as possible See http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Thus spake Eric A. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/2/2002 11:13 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote: Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you control the growth? 1/ no trademarks allowed Every combination of characters is trademarked for some purpose in some jurisdiction. If you find some exceptions, I'll find some VC money and take care of that; problem solved. 2/ competitive rebidding every two years IBM is not going to like potentially losing IBM. every two years to someone with more cash. VeriSign's customers *really* won't like every registration under VERISIGN. going away if VeriSign loses a bid. 3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions) A hierarchy without any kind of classification? That just means everyone will register their under every possible TLD and we'll get a million copies of the same flat namespace. Look at COM. vs NET. today, most SLDs from one exist in the other, and VeriSign even offers a package where they'll register your SLD in every single TLD that exists for one price. 4/ high entry fees Well, that'll certainly be needed, since the root registrar will need a few hundred DNS servers to handle the volume of new queries in the root now that you've made a flat namespace. IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs entirely. There isn't enough demand to support more than a few dozen popular TLDs. Au contraire. There are several dozens of popular ccTLDs, but only one popular gTLD (out of what, 9 now?). Generic TLDs are user-driven, with the market deciding which ones they want to use. Geographic TLDs are completely arbitrary and favor the functionary instead of the user. That depends on the local functionary. Many ccTLDs are completely free to residents of the respective country. And every one I've worked with has better customer service than the registry for COM. S
naming debates
dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some place else. thanks, -rick
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
on 12/3/2002 1:49 PM Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake Eric A. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/ no trademarks allowed Every combination of characters is trademarked for some purpose in some jurisdiction. If you find some exceptions, I'll find some VC money and take care of that; problem solved. Let's not get carried away. Trademark didn't stop .info and it won't stop .car or .auto either. 2/ competitive rebidding every two years IBM is not going to like potentially losing IBM. see item 1. 3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions) A hierarchy without any kind of classification? Nobody has been able to make any kind of classification work in the generalized sense. Every classification scheme eventually proves to be derived and arbitrary. Markets are chaotic, but the ordering that makes sense to the customers does eventually emerge. COM. vs NET. today, most SLDs from one exist in the other, and VeriSign even offers a package where they'll register your SLD in every single TLD that exists for one price. This is completely irrelevant. 4/ high entry fees Well, that'll certainly be needed, since the root registrar will need a few hundred DNS servers to handle the volume of new queries in the root now that you've made a flat namespace. I don't see anybody arguing for a flat root. That may be the argument you want to have but I haven't seen it suggested. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
