| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Building the alternative to DNS
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
If you're not aware of it, here is what Bob Frankston was saying a year ago. -g
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
Re: Telephone numbers vs. domain names vs. other m
by fnord
|
|
|
 |
Thank you very much for pointing to
Bob Frankston's article,
"DNS: A Safe Haven." It contains excellent reasoning, and covers all of the good ideas in my proposal. The only differences that I noticed:
- I view his ".DNS" solution under the current DNS as an initial implemenation, followed by a native implementation administratively independent of DNS (but using essentially the same software).
- I think that we can provide the ".DNS" style solution now, without help from ICANN, because it doesn't really require a new top-level domain.
Mike O'Donnell
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
 |
I have been hunting through RFCs and Internet Drafts for previous work related to my proposal. I found a recent Internet Draft by Sam Sun and Larry Lannom, "Handle System Overview". It points to an already rather mature Handle System project, with a software distribution.
There is a lot in common between my proposal, Frankston's, and the Handle System. I haven't had time to read all of the details of the Handle System. At first glance, it seems that:
- It commits to accommodating meaningful names as handles, except at the root level, which may make it vulnerable to tradename disputes.
- It contains a level of complexity in managing read and write permissions that I hoped to avoid.
- The project doesn't seem to propose any immediate deployment through under the current DNS, but depends on adoption of its software.
Like fnord, I am primarily concerned with the fact that there is no widespread deployment of some sort of handle system, even though the desirability appears to me to be a no-brainer, and independent of the particular ideology that motivated me to think of it. I expect to eventually find some discussion of it in an early RFC, once I guess what other word or phrase it used instead of "handle." It may be that the idea has always been bogged down in disagreement over how much service to build in to the basic system. My emphasis here is to identify the minimum service that could be provided by a strategic handle-resolution system, while allowing useful additions to be implemented independently, figure out what resources we need to get the thing going, and then start sending proposals to potential supporters.
Mike O'Donnell
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|