MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

Mon May 15 08:35:06 UTC 2006

> > But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a
> > simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash
> > system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal.
> 
> Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't 
possible, 
> given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for 
large 
> problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of 
these 
> are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no 
management 
> overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace "just works".

According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming
system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc.
defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be
a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy
into the system.

> However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but 
the 
> diverse  registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is 
that 
> delegates all "do their own thing".

Seems to me that this is part of the definition
of "delegate". Some would say that this makes for
a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy
where everyone has to toe the party line.

> I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even 
> an overlay, 
> but of course it needs a business model of sorts.

It has been tried at least twice and failed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/13/realnames_goes_titsup_com/
http://www.idcommons.net

--Michael Dillon