Re: DNS under o=Internet

[[e-mail]]

> I'm  not sure that  this is a  good question,  but...  How do regional
> networks  or   these kind  of networks    fit   in this  view.  
> What
> will  happend with Nordunet, EUnet? I  could understand that they will
> become OU's under o=Internet...
> But   what  about  RIPE which   is  not a  network    in itself  but a
> coordination point of networks. This is not  clear to  me at all. This
> does not   impact the  DNS  but this  may impact the   "definition" of
> o=Internet.

My $0.02: I agree with Steve Hardcastle-Kille that this is an interesting
question.

My first cut would be to put networks (actually network providers)
in the civil (aka "white-pages") namespace. My argument would be that
from the point of view of the Directory, network providers
are organizations whose "business" is the provision of network
connectivity. Similarly with RIPE, RARE, and even the IETF; organizations
connected with networking, but not really network providers. They
are just organizations that whose "business" is "network
planning/engineering".

I am *very* leery of putting network providers under the Internet
listing point willy-nilly because that opens up a major can of worms:
once we special-case network providers, why not NICs? And if we've gone
this far, why limit ourselves to special-casing only organizations
whose "business" is connected to networking? Why not other types
of "businesses"? Ultimately we'll end up with a mess.

Please don't me wrong: I'm neither criticizing you, nor saying
that listing organizations by business is a bad thing (assuming
we go with the listing model etc. etc.). I'm just saying that
you've opened a can of worms that I think we need to proceed
very carefully with.

> I'm all confused and would appreciate explanations.

I'm confused too.


Wengyik