Re: Addressing the name speculation problem

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:06 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
[...]
> The Latency Approach
> The Toll Gate Approach
> The Endorsement Approach

Hmm... the endorsement approach is interesting, but I wonder
if it's feasible...

The Toll Gate Approach seems pretty radical; I'm not aware
of any precedent for IANA collecting money.

These approaches are quite responsive to my question...
that is... until I get to...

> Please note that none of these are proposals...

Well... sigh. I found them much more interesting when
I thought they were proposals.

>  They are simply
> responses to Dan's question...  brainstorming *policy* solutions to a
> *policy* problem.  What we are facing at the moment is a *technical*
> solution to a *policy* problem, and I think that this is generally a
> dangerous way to enact policy.  The side effects will be unpredictable
> and pernicious, and a cure, if it should be needed, is likely to be
> harder to implement.

I don't understand that. A provisional registry as a step before
permanent registration looks like a policy solution to a policy
problem to me.

I don't find this effort at separation of concerns very appealing.
I see the job here as designing a system that works as a whole, taking
into consideration resources available in IANA, etc.

I think the system proposed in the draft is workable.
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines/
January 3, 2005

It meets the uniqueness requirement in the case of permanent
registrations and saves me the trouble of running my own
provisional registry. 1/2 ;-)

I can imagine other systems might work too... but not
draft-hansen hobbled with a uniqueness requirement on
the provisional registry.

I guess I'll stay tuned to see if any of the other approaches
gets more support or gets refined into operational details.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 19:06:33 UTC