On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:56:44 PST, Simon Higgs said:
prevail and that running code and rough consensus demands the peering of non-conflicting TLDs for everyone's benefit. It's a common practise in
Hmm.. "non-conflicting". Let's think about this for a moment. Let's assume we have 3 TLD managment groups called A, B, and C. In order for there to be non-conflicting roots, A, B, and C have to enter into some sort of agreement that if A registers a TLD .frobozz, that B and C will promise to not register a conflicting definition of said TLD. So what we really have here is (A+B+C) functioning as a single root, but A, B, and C individually publishing only a subset of the root to their customers (although why the customers want a value-subtracted view of the DNS is beyond me). So, to name names - if the ORSC crew and the ICANN crew were to collaborate on a non-conflicting definition of "the root", then the composite of the two of them would be a root, with each feeding only a subset to their customers. Of course, such collaboration is *NOT* happening in the real world, so we *will* eventually see a conflict. It will probably happen the first time ICANN allocates a new TLD that ORSC carries, but nominates a different registrar or a different server on the NS record for the TLD. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech