Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ...

[Avri Doria]

On 21 Sep 2009, at 13:14, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:

> except for some fields like the CNAME that you mentioned at the  
> workshop,

this is not just any old field but an essential feature, a resource  
record type that, until and unless it is changed makes the entire  
project unworkable as the namespaces will leak into each other.  Even  
if  you intend your new Class not to use it, the fact that in can be  
used means that the namespaces can't be isolated from each other -  
hence putting us back in need of a single global name space.   i.e.  
right back were we are now.

> almost everything is in the RFCs

not by a long shot.

two things that immediately come to mind are a well formed definition  
of these Classes and a well formed URI scheme for naming your new  
services/objects so that apps, apps that would need to be modified,  
can use the new namespace.

and things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may  
or may not work.

and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated?

as for http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm

The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people  
started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why  
it would be very difficult.

my prediction is still that even if you can get the resources and  
talent to do all the necessary research work and if it is indeed  
doable, which won't be known until some ways down the road, I still  
predict a decade is the shortest time before deployment - and possibly  
2 decades before it might see wide spread use - if it proves to be  
feasible at all. I admit this is slightly better then the infinite  
time prediction I gave you on first hearing the proposal (the last  
thing I predicted infinite time on was IPv6 and yeah, maybe i was  
wrong on that.  maybe.)  as i said, i love seeing people find clever  
uses for unused protocol features, but one must be realistic about the  
effort involved in making it work and deployment.  i think there is  
some cleverness in the proposal but the road to deployment is really  
really difficult and very very long.

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance