Did you follow the discussions that I initiated on
a similar set of topics on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing lists about two years ago?
In that thread I proposed something along the
lines that you are looking for. I am including my
last message on that thread below.
Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] followed up on that idea
and asked why we can't build on it and move
towards a solution. If I remember right, the
subject line of his message was:
"Does IETF stand for Innovation Extermination Task Force?"
Shortly after that, the IETF Chair restricted his
participation in [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
The problems with DNS are well known.
Fixing them in the context of some next generation DNS makes good sense.
I am also interested in the answer to your question.
Rahmat - is there any WG, or organization, or list, or whatever
Rahmat which is actively discussing the TECHNICAL (not political)
Rahmat aspect of how a new DNS scheme should be?
...Mohsen.
---
From: Mohsen BANAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Now: Next Generation Domains and DNS -- Was: Re: No More Central
Authority: Not NSI/ICAN! Not ORSC!
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[This is a summary response which covers comments
which were in reply to my:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
message with the subject of:
Re: Now: Next Generation Domains and DNS -- Was: Re: No More Central Authority: Not
NSI/ICAN! Not ORSC!
dated Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:41:13 -0800 (PST).]
I ended my previous note, by saying:
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:41:13 -0800 (PST), Mohsen BANAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mohsen ...
Mohsen Now, after all of this if there was to be an
Mohsen acknowledgment that there is an architectural
Mohsen problem here and that this is not a "strings
Mohsen parsing" issue which can go either way, then
Mohsen may be we can work on solutions
Many got the point -- that there is a "notation backwardness" problem.
For example:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:42:32 -, "mark.paton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
mark I hate to admit it but he has a point!
and:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:50:41 +0400, Peter Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Peter ...
Peter How come the folks don't admit the mistakes and just
Peter keepcontinuing.. ?? we all understand it is human to err.. !!
and:
Now, we just have got to leave behind those who
after all of this, still don't get it and can't
(or don't want to) follow.
I -- and many others -- have known about this
notation backwardness for more than 10 years.
Prior to last week, I had never brought up this
issue publicly.
There is a good reason why I chose 1999 as the
time to bring it up. That is because, I believe
it is only now that we have an opportunity to
plant the right seeds so that the "problem" can
be fixed over time.
Taking advantage of this opportunity to fix it
is a lot more reasonable than "living" with it.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 04:14:55 -0500 (EST), "Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Theodore ...
Theodore Whether or not you call this a "Problem" depends on your point
Theodore of view. But this is reality. Live with it.
Ted, you live with it. If you want to.
I am an engineer. I try to fix problems when
the opportunity presents itself.
Please consider what I refer to as the
"opportunity to plant the right seeds", with an
open mind for a moment.
May be it is workable.
May be it is not.
Worstcase, we live with it.
I want to try.
Yes. This problem has widespread roots.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:09:02 -0800 (PST), Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ned I am in complete agreement with Ted here. I also have issues with the way
Ned things work and the way things were done, but I recognize that this stuff is
Ned far too widely deployed at far too many levels to change now.
Ned, I understand (and respect) the
significance of the installed base as much as
the next guy.
That is why I don't refer to this as a "quick fix"
but as a "planting of the seeds" type of an
approach.
In order to understand what I am proposing we
have to consider it in the larger context of
Domains and DNS ambiance of 1999.
Let's put everything on the table and take a
quick look.
- We have a DNS-mess grid-lock.
At least according to some (me
included). The idea of
expanding top level domains have gone
nowhere. Introducing competition at the
root-server and registration level has gone nowhere.
General confidence in progress is low ...
- Updates to DNS Software (both client and
server) for beyond IPv4 addresses are needed.
- Updates to DNS Software (both client and
server) for security, public keys, certificates,
... are needed.
- As phone numbers and Domains keep coming
together, the domain notation's backwardness
is becoming more visible and significant.
- ...
Since it
