I also support Steven's suggested wording, which is in line with W3C's support for RFC 2826. -Philipp Hoschka Tapio Kaijanen a écrit : > > Dear PSO PC colleagues > > This is my first e-mail message to you all-and I want to make a positive > start: > As Azucena I support the wording of Steve. > > Best regards > Tapio > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES> > To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@RESEARCH.ATT.COM> > Cc: "pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)" <pso-pc@ties.itu.ch> > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:24 AM > Subject: Re: Alternative Roots Issue > > > Dear Steve, dear PSO PC colleagues, > > > > I fully support the propose words provided by Steve.. > > > > Kind regards, > > Azucena > > At 14:49 21/09/01 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > >In message <905DD86907DAD3119DE70000778D770F04E41246@mailsrv1.itu.ch>, > "Androuc > > >hko, Vladimir" writes: > > >>Hello, > > >>Dear Protocol Council Members, > > > > > >I'm not sure I'm responding to the proper version of this note -- I > > >received three very similar notes, and two recall notes. (It would be > > >nice, I might add, if the "recall" notes cited the Message-Id of the > > >message being recalled.) > > > > > >Anyway -- we really need to rework the wording to make it clearer > > >and less ambiguous -- or at least less subject to willful misreading. > > >At the Montevideo meeting, John Klensin repeated the basic message > > >of RFC 2826 by pointing out that the formal, mathematical definitions > > >of things like "trees" and "roots" do not permit even a meaningful > > >discussion of multiple roots in the DNS. > > > > > >Here is some possible alternative language, derived from Leslie's > > >earlier suggestion. > > > > > > The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured > > > name space known as the DNS. Of necessity, such a name > > > space must have a single, authoritative root. Moving to > > > a model that would not require such a single, authoritative > > > root would require replacing the present, working DNS with > > > some other system. Such a replacement would require the > > > development of a new naming paradigm, as well as the > > > protocols and software to implement it. Developing and > > > deploying such replacement protocols would take years, and > > > would have enormous potential for disruption of the Internet. > > > The PSO does not see any technical benefit in such an > > > effort. > > > > > >It says essentially the same thing as our earlier wording -- that > > >one can conceive of different ways to do name resolution -- but > > >points out the costs. While there has been little explicit > > >discussion of the earlier, ambiguous, text within the IETF, some > > >who have seen it and the proposals based on it have reacted very > > >strongly. For the Protocol Council to fail to take action in this > > >area would probably invite a unilateral response from the IETF. > > > > > > > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb > > > http://www.wilyhacker.com > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************* > > Azucena Hernandez > > Telefonica > > Desarrollo de Red > > c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID > > Tel: +34 91 5846842 > > Fax: +34 91 5846843 > > GSM: +34 609 425506 > > E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es > > ************************************************ > >