Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> writes: > > Normally, a registry is created when it will help the operation of > > the protocol. The problem here is that there's an _anti_-protocol, > > and therefore it's mystifying to me how a registry helps anything, > > since there is no way to know whether a registry will actually help > > or in some cases even hurt. > > Yes. This.
To put this another way: the proponents of the currently active non-DNS naming systems are creating these systems with an active desire to avoid a centralized form of control over the name space they're creating. And by having a registry, it would re-insert some level of control that they're explicitly fighting against. I don't think Eliot is wrong when he said: > > > As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. Any registry that the current designers would be most happy with would also be not a centralized registry. Who knows, maybe it'll be "last edit on wikipedia" or "king of the hill" or "will get put as a default in the GNS" (which, ironically, becomes a central point of control if no one deviates from it). The point is: if these systems want a complete decentralized space to play in and know the risks of toe-stepping, then that's fine. Now, the problem we'll run into is along comes a new name space system that wants to be more centrally controlled, but is still not the DNS. Clearly, .alt won't be the perfect solution for them. And they'd prefer something like .reg.alt where conflict doesn't occur. Sadly, we almost need two .alt name spaces: one which is explicitly not-registry-controlled, and one which is. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
