[governance] IGF and TLDs

[JFC Morfin]

At 23:32 29/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 29 Jun 2010, at 22:44, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
> > The main problem created by the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation 
> lonesome attitude is their lack of interoperability with other URI 
> resolution systems.
>
>not really,  if someone defines other naming schemes (have 
>participated in defining one myself: 
>draft-irtf-dtnrg-dtn-uri-scheme/draft-davies-dtnrg-uri-find 
>-  drafts currently out of date) and builds the servers and 
>end-system code to support it, they may do anything they can do.

This matter interests me (my main interest is the asynchronous 
receiving of the information never sent [ambient, active and meta 
content]). I did not know about the DTNRG. Reading this will be good 
teaching about this kind of Draft. Thank you.

>no one is stopping anyone from defining another naming system 
>according to rfc3986 and the protocols that go along with it.  it is 
>just that there is no uptake for it at the moment (or even research 
>support as far as i can tell).

As far as you can tell.

>And if someone builds a real system out in the world that really 
>works and really starts to reach decent deployments levels (for some 
>value of decent) the gateways and interop will happen.  they always do.

The beauty of the Interplus proposition (once IAB answers) is that it 
does not change a single bit in the existing underused Internet 
architecture. It just follows the same principles as IDNA; it 
encapsulates the Internet for each user.

jfc 

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t