Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

Replying to this, having at least skimmed, if not read the followups...

On 2/3/16, 13:56, "Arcing on behalf of Ted Hardie"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


>My first question to this group is:  do folks agree with this
>characterization?  If not, what's wrong?

I agree fully, FWIW.

>If they do agree with the characterization of the problem, does this
>sketch of solution spaces look right?

Yep.

>And, most importantly, which level of the problem do we think we can
>solve:  the multiple namespaces one or the unitary namespace/multiple
>resolution contexts one?

One solution is to define a single namespace, complimentary to as much
de-jure use that now exists.  Defining what protocols "support" the
namespace can be left to the protocol's discretion.  What I mean is, I
tried for a while to define the scope of protocols that I wanted to have
Domain Names apply to, but calling the set something like "IETF protocols"
turned out to be inaccurate.  So I began to think of - just define a name
space and see what protocols "come" to it.

There's a lot to discuss.  I think markers approach is currently the most
appealing, but, you never can tell at this stage.