Michael Dillon writes:
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
How does providing different top level domains for different categories of organizations "violate the laws of physics", Michael?
It tries to confine objects to a single state whereas physics teaches that the universe cannot be so neatly sliced and diced.
Of course, I could have simply asked the question that needs to be asked, namely: why would anyone want a name to include a category anyway?
Your name, Jay Ashworth, gives no clue as to your education, your training, your profession, your age, your race, your height. Why should an Internet domain name be any different? The DNS needs to be hierarchical so that a query can trace a path from the root of the DNS to find the IP address belonging to a name. But why should the branches in the hierarchy mean anything in particular in any given human language? Some people would like to restrict .com to COMMON usage, .org to ORGASMIC providers and .net to CLEAN content (net is French for clean), but I personally don't give a damn and prefer a more diverse and chaotic system of naming.
Ahh but you're wrong.. Ashworth is his family identifier. It gives him a possible relationship with other "Ashworth"s in existance. Chaotic and diverse naming is fine as long as you have a rather nice way of indexing it all. But.. we don't. (And don't joke about search engines..) FOr example. Wouldn't it make more logical sense if there existed a domain 'movie.com' with which movies were registered under? Saves stuff like http://www.titanic-themovie.com/ or whatever it is since Titanic is taken. And it means that there can be a rather logical choice to start a search of your favourite movie's official web presence. What about looking for a car? GOing online shopping? Finding pr0n? (oh wait, thats one thing search engines are good for..) With the sheer amount of information on the internet today there really needs to be a decent distributed indexing system for all of it. DNS could have been it if it were maintained a little more thoughtfully from the beginning. My 2c.. (I think its 0.7c in the US..) Adrian
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Adrian Chadd wrote:
FOr example. Wouldn't it make more logical sense if there existed a domain 'movie.com' with which movies were registered under?
I quite agree that it would make more logical sense. It would also make more logical sense if all babies were assigned to a profession at birth and all Internet providers were licensed by the State Bandwidth Demand and Supply Board. But there is more to life than logic and "sense". Therefore I prefer a naming system that is diverse and chaotic and I'm confident that such a system would evolve into something that would be of more use to more people than a hierarchical taxonomy.
With the sheer amount of information on the internet today there really needs to be a decent distributed indexing system for all of it. DNS could have been it if it were maintained a little more thoughtfully from the beginning.
Dream on. DNS is an addressing scheme just like "123 Any St., Anytown, USA". It does a job that needed to be done, more or less well. If you want something different then find people who will pay for it and build it. I suspect you will find that there is little demand and no money available to build a universal index of everything there is. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 02:08:12PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Adrian Chadd wrote:
FOr example. Wouldn't it make more logical sense if there existed a domain 'movie.com' with which movies were registered under?
I quite agree that it would make more logical sense. It would also make more logical sense if all babies were assigned to a profession at birth and all Internet providers were licensed by the State Bandwidth Demand and Supply Board.
Huh? Where'd _that_ come from? I think his suggestion was a passable one, to try and fit an observed reality into a (for the moment) fixed taxonomy. .movie would probably be a better solution, but we're not going there (yet).
But there is more to life than logic and "sense". Therefore I prefer a naming system that is diverse and chaotic and I'm confident that such a system would evolve into something that would be of more use to more people than a hierarchical taxonomy.
Might we say "flexible" instead? What, precisely, are you suggesting? Hierarchicality is almost forced by the architectural design of the current implementation of DNS; and I got a hot scoop for you: you won't get a flag day on DNS.
Dream on. DNS is an addressing scheme just like "123 Any St., Anytown, USA". It does a job that needed to be done, more or less well. If you want something different then find people who will pay for it and build it. I suspect you will find that there is little demand and no money available to build a universal index of everything there is.
It would be you, would it not, who "wants something different"? You're correct, making DNS into anything except a very coarse index is infeasible. But I don't see any reason to specifically _avoid_ using DNS as at least a classification tool so people know what to expect when they go somewhere. We're veering far off-topic for NANOG here, quick; let's get back on topic before everyone flies home. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Hierarchicality is almost forced by the architectural design of the current implementation of DNS; and I got a hot scoop for you: you won't get a flag day on DNS.
The only hierarchy that is forced by DNS is the hierarchy of delegation of subdomains and the hierarchy of search paths to resolve a name to an address. The DNS does not favor any particular categorization scheme. You can just as easily use www.ca.example.com and www.us.example.com as you can use www.example.us and www.example.ca.
Dream on. DNS is an addressing scheme just like "123 Any St., Anytown, USA". It does a job that needed to be done, more or less well. If you want something different then find people who will pay for it and build it. I suspect you will find that there is little demand and no money available to build a universal index of everything there is.
It would be you, would it not, who "wants something different"?
No. The naming schemes that people currently apply to the DNS are diverse and chaotic. I don't want to see that changed by imposing a top-down set of rules on the DNS and that is what everyone else in this thread has suggested. It matters not if there was some historical understanding that was followed by the DNS registry 6 years ago. That's not how things work now. And so far as I can see the Magaziner white paper has given the green light to IANA to go ahead and expand the top level namespace in an orderly fashion. It is unlikely that they will impose any rules on the end-users of domain names, only on the registry system itself to ensure that things proceed in an orderly fashion.
You're correct, making DNS into anything except a very coarse index is infeasible. But I don't see any reason to specifically _avoid_ using DNS as at least a classification tool so people know what to expect when they go somewhere.
Here's one reason. Because it is impossible to make DNS into anything but a very coarse index. I remember seeing a documentary of a scientist in Florida that was studying alligators. He was using a computer to record and analyze his data. The video showed him entering data into a DOS machine running EDLIN and then using GWBASIC to process the data. Other people will swear that you need ORACLE and Mathematica to do scientific data analysis and recording. If you have a nail that needs hammering then every tool looks like a hammer. I took my kids to a birdhouse building class this spring and there weren't enough hammers to go around so I went out into the parking lot and got a rock. It did the job and they were pleased to learn that you can hammer nails without a hammer. But if I were recommending tools for a birdhouse-building factory, you can be sure I would not recommend hammers. Thus the fact that DNS *COULD* be used as an indexing system is irrelevant. The real question is: given that the Internet would greatly facilitate the use of an indexing system, how could one best be built? And I think there is a real answer to this question that could be discovered if enough folks would pull together an IETF working group that includes some librarians and some protocol designers.
We're veering far off-topic for NANOG here, quick; let's get back on topic before everyone flies home. :-)
Nobody but you and I are reading this thread anymore. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
Announcing a new mailing list for ISPs unfortunate enough to operate in one of US West's 14 states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico The purpose of the list is an attempt for ISPs to gain strength in numbers and support each other in dealing with our favorite telco, US West, as well as dealing with our respective Public Service Comissions to force US West to "play fair". As you probably know, US West is in the process of introducing DSL in 40 markets. The co-marketing of USWEST internet access via USWEST.NET ALONG with the DSL line is a major problem and the current hot topic on the mailing list. The ISPs in Oregon and Washington (who happen to have Public Service Comissions with a spine) have won important concessions in regards to DSL and the marketing of it. It is very simply to subscribe, just send an empty email to: uswisp-subscribe@lists.nm.org To unsubscribe send one to: uswisp-unsubscribe@lists.nm.org Please forward this email to any ISPs which could benefit. Dax Kelson Internet Connect, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT
Okay I just have to ask... Isn't California in the West? Or have you assumed that the big earthquake has come and we have fallen off into the ocean? :-) ---CJ From: Dax Kelson <dkelson@inconnect.com> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New US West Territory ISP mailing list Announcing a new mailing list for ISPs unfortunate enough to operate in one of US West's 14 states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico The purpose of the list is an attempt for ISPs to gain strength in numbers and support each other in dealing with our favorite telco, US West, as well as dealing with our respective Public Service Comissions to force US West to "play fair". As you probably know, US West is in the process of introducing DSL in 40 markets. The co-marketing of USWEST internet access via USWEST.NET ALONG with the DSL line is a major problem and the current hot topic on the mailing list. The ISPs in Oregon and Washington (who happen to have Public Service Comissions with a spine) have won important concessions in regards to DSL and the marketing of it. It is very simply to subscribe, just send an empty email to: uswisp-subscribe@lists.nm.org To unsubscribe send one to: uswisp-unsubscribe@lists.nm.org Please forward this email to any ISPs which could benefit. Dax Kelson Internet Connect, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:28:02AM -0700, Cathy Wittbrodt wrote:
Okay I just have to ask... Isn't California in the West? Or have you assumed that the big earthquake has come and we have fallen off into the ocean? :-)
Last I checked, California was not serviced by US Worst, it was serviced by SBC/PacBell. [disclaimer: "Of course, I may be wrong."] ;) -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
Okay, here's the deal. I didn't have enough coffee this morning and I didn't see the "US" in front of "West". I know who the local telco is and I just simply missed that. I have been completely spammed by responses. I get it. You can stop now. Thanks bunches! ---CJ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@shell.nacs.net> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New US West Territory ISP mailing list On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:28:02AM -0700, Cathy Wittbrodt wrote: > > Okay I just have to ask... Isn't California in the West? Or have you > assumed that the big earthquake has come and we have fallen off into > the ocean? :-) Last I checked, California was not serviced by US Worst, it was serviced by SBC/PacBell. [disclaimer: "Of course, I may be wrong."] ;) -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
At 06:06 PM 6/10/98 -0400, Steve Sobol wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 09:28:02AM -0700, Cathy Wittbrodt wrote:
Okay I just have to ask... Isn't California in the West? Or have you assumed that the big earthquake has come and we have fallen off into the ocean? :-)
Last I checked, California was not serviced by US Worst, it was serviced by SBC/PacBell.
[disclaimer: "Of course, I may be wrong."] ;)
Actually, I hear a real bad rumor that USwest may try and encroach in CA. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
participants (7)
-
Adrian Chadd -
cjw＠corp.home.net -
Dax Kelson -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Michael Dillon -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Steve Sobol