<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Statements against new.net? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Cube B23, 871 Fox Lane, San Jose, California, USA, North-Western Quadrisphere, Earth, 3rd planet of Sol, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I just hierarchally described my work location. Assertion (2) given at least one counter-example, assumed to be false until either restated or counter-example disproven.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Assertion (1) assumed true.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>How do multiple roots assist #1? When I can type 'new.net' and, depending on the root zone that I'm using, believe either ICANN's idea of new.net or my personal root's delegation of the new.net. zone?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Your assertion about ICQ: ICQ provides a lookup function, and the only UIN that I used on my ICQ list was my own to get it installed. Are you suggesting that instead of DNS zones, we should instead use an LDAP directory (or something similar) to look up what we're searching for?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think the idea of 'chosen' domain names is a stupid concept, in any case -- though I do admit I -like- the mnemonic convenience of my email address at home.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think it's more likely that the DNS has probably scaled to the point that it needs to be examined to be replaced.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Vadim Antonov [<A HREF="mailto:avg@kotovnik.com">mailto:avg@kotovnik.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:46 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Mathew Butler</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mathew Butler wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> The problem is, of course, that it's NOT human-to-human communication. It's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> machine-to-machine communication, and human-to-machine communication, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> DNS was designed to create a mnemonic representation of a way to reach a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> machine.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>If it is machines communicating there's no need to do any mnemonics. In</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>fact, it is still humans communicating, with the aid of the machines.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So... we have two design constraints:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1) people need to be able to locate and revisit somethings in the network</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2) any meaningful hierarchial labeling of the real world is quite</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> impossible, and runs into problems of scaling, adversity, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> entrenched notions of ownership.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Propping up DNS as-is only guarantees that the whole thing is going to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>pushed off the cliff on the second side. Neither it is very good on the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>first count.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So, instead of trying to fix the broken concept, and raising ridiculous</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>protests and indignation when someone tries to rock the boat, isn't it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>easier just to go for a real permanent solution? Which is to replace</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"mnemonic" DNS with something deliberately mnemonic-free (like numeric</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>strings :) and leave the human-interaction part to the better and wildly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>successful concept of navigation in a general graph.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The exising deployed software is nearly sufficient (and in many cases</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>quite adequate) to make this mode of communication easy to use.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>My proposal is to create a special hierarchy (similar to tpc.int) which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>can _only_ be used to register numeric "names" on first-come first-served</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>basis. The "current" DNS then can go down in flames, for all i care.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Actually, I think this is inevitable, since some day someone will find a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>way to win a lawsuit against the whatever central naming authority is.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Anyone who thinks numeric IDs do not work when "better" alphanumeric IDs</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>are possible needs to take a look at the ICQ. It is _very_ successful in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>case you didn't notice. And so is telephony.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>And in case you didn't notice that most people in the world do not speak</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>english, and do not use latin script, let me tell you the simple (and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>quite obvious to someone who is not spoiled by American isolationism)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>fact: for the majority of world population ASCII strings are only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>marginally better than numbers in being "mnemonic" - and it is much easier</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to pronounce numbers in a native language.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--vadim</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>