- From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 11:11:09 -0500
- To: Michael Shapiro <mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
At 10:51 AM 3/27/95, Michael Shapiro wrote: >|Is there an implicit assumption regarding the relationship between >|the "ownership" of a given DNS domain and an associated subdomain >|under the "path.urn" space? Is there explicitly no relationship? > >If you are asking if there is a relationship between the existing >hostnames and the "path.urn" names - there is not. They are unrelated. >It would probably be the case that some of the same machines that >function as nameservers for hostnames would also function as servers >for the "path.urn" namespace, but this isn't required. New machines can >become nameservers for "path.urn" that do not act as nameservers for >hostnames. >.. >| >|It might be a good idea to have some discussion in the document about >|the operational and administrative impacts of this mapping approach. >| > >I'm uncertain as to the content of such a discussion. Would it be a >suggestion for the top level names (or perhaps even one or two levels >down). How did the existing set of DNS domains get instituted? How >would this discussion diverge from the (existing) discussions about >hostnames? The existing set of DNS domains are allocated based on policies which are currently undergoing legal scrutiny with respect to the trademark infringement. We need to consider before recommending the establishment of a second name space which will certainly garner similiar actions... /John
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 1995 11:11:26 UTC