1. Security ("man-in-the-middle").
VPNs, SSH tunnels, etc. There are ways to solve this problem.
2. Common interoperability.
We do not currently have common interoperability for a whole range of protocols. The most obvious examples are instant messaging and P2P file transfer but there are many more when you start digging. Often common interoperability is not desired by the end users and they are the ones who determine what succeeds at the end of the day.
3. *Common sense.* [Erm, oh yeah, perhaps I shouldn't feed the troll. After all, this is the same guy who thinks that resurrecting the long dead concept of source routed e-mail is scalable.]
Since when did the NANOG mailing list become your personal venue for flinging personal insults at other list members? For the record, I have never suggested that source-routing is a good idea for email nor have I ever suggested that source-routing is scalable. Some people who read my comments on email architecture jumped to knee-jerk conclusions (the wrong conclusions) that I wanted to resurrect UUCP bang-paths. God knows where they got that idea from.
You really should read RFC2826 sometime. It's quite short, as RFCs go.
I have read it and I appreciate the IAB's comments, but it was written at a time when we didn't have as much experience with rootless networks as we do now. The work of various people in Freenet and other P2P technologies shows that it may indeed be technically feasible to have a DNS that does not have one single monolithic root. Received wisdom is always interesting, but sometimes it is wrong. Remember the IETF mantra? Working code and rough consensus. There are two groups that currently have working code and they are cooperating with each other which means that the work is being done in an atmosphere of "rough consensus". The end result is that they *WILL* *WIN* the debate unless you and other naysayers can point out specific and unresolvable technical issues with their work. The gist of the discussion on this list has been that people don't *LIKE* the alt roots, that they don't *FEEL* good about the idea, that they *FEAR* the possible outcomes. Those are not technical issues. I realize that there are some people on this list that want to enforce the one true religion of Internet and discourage non-believers from joining the club, but I don't agree with that approach. I believe that it is better to let the free flow of ideas continue because the Internet is robust enough to survive and thrive in the face of countless experiments including people announcing huge AS-paths and people running alternate DNS roots. Bring it on! --Michael Dillon