North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Multiple Roots simply need context
Wouldn't a context just be another root? Who then controls what context's are valid and who's context server is right? James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy R. McKee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Multiple Roots simply need context > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The day that I have to start asking John Doe User questions like this is the > day I move back into systems programming, writing device drivers is much > less of a headache. I can just see the vendors ads now... go to > http://www.abbey.shop (if you are new.net context) or http://www.abby.shop > (if you are in mynew.net context). If this happens most of our normal user > base will begin leaving in droves. (Count LOST REVENUE... LOST JOBS... > PROBABLY MINE!!) > > This is not an academic exercise. This has become a business catering to > ordinary people that are NOT computer/network wizards. The minute we start > to require our users to make informed complicated decisions we will begin to > loose them all. > > In the telco world this would be the equivalent of a telco subscribing to > one of several SS7 providers - each with overlapping SS7 point codes (this > is the telephony routing table). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > Chris Davis > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 15:24 > > To: '[email protected]' > > Subject: Multiple Roots simply need context > > > > > > > > > > There is no problem in having hundreds or thousands of multiple > > root servers > > for DNS. > > > > We have a problem with CONTEXT. There is no existing way to ascertain the > > context from which users are resolving domain names. > > > > Solution: DNS Context Servers... DNS operators subscribe their > > machines to > > the DNS context they want. In one context, ".xxx" can resolve > > via new.net, > > in another context, ".xxx" resolves via one of the other .xxx > > providers. To > > keep ICANN and friends happy, ICANN could be the "default" context. > > > > Help calls then have one and only one additional question: "To which DNS > > context do you subscribe?" > > > > Context servers are pretty obviously where things are headed. Sooner or > > later, some new.net company is going to "take." If we already have DNS > > context servers in place, life will be much easier when an alternative TLD > > provider does succeed. > > > > -Chris Davis > > --not really selling private address space, that was a joke > > --not a fan of new.net's plugin, since it breaks ping, traceroute, and > > tradition > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> > > iQA/AwUBOrZ2mxRIXzEQLahvEQK6uACgguSOXWRJtxv9wQrc4YZeHZ88nggAn1Qc > urxnAGjLYlh9AIq6p/yDNPzB > =A9Dr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >
|