Re: draft-isoc-dns-role-00.txt

Dirk Fieldhouse <fieldhouse@logica.com> Thu, 23 November 1995 20:56 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13400; 23 Nov 95 15:56 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13396; 23 Nov 95 15:56 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14058; 23 Nov 95 15:56 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13387; 23 Nov 95 15:56 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13356; 23 Nov 95 15:54 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14013; 23 Nov 95 15:53 EST
Received: from relay1.pipex.net by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA03612>; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:53:54 -0800
Received: from juliet.logica.com by flow.pipex.net with SMTP (PP); Thu, 23 Nov 1995 20:53:04 +0000
Received: by juliet.logica.com; id UAA28951; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 20:53:02 GMT
Received: from romeo.logica.co.uk(158.234.8.75) by juliet.logica.com via smap (g3.0.3) id xma028948; Thu, 23 Nov 95 20:52:43 GMT
Received: (from news@localhost) by romeo.logica.co.uk (8.7/8.7.1) id UAA23480; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 20:52:46 GMT
To: info-ietf@pipex.net
Path: usenet
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dirk Fieldhouse <fieldhouse@logica.com>
Newsgroups: info.ietf
Subject: Re: draft-isoc-dns-role-00.txt
Date: 23 Nov 1995 20:52:45 GMT
Organization: Logica plc (for whom I do not speak)
Lines: 25
Message-Id: <492mut$m48@romeo.logica.co.uk>
References: <95112210384768@engr05.comsys.rockwell.com> <199511231753.MAA24553@jekyll.piermont.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 158.234.36.92
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7

In article <199511231753.MAA24553@jekyll.piermont.com>;, perry@piermont.com 
says...

>And I always do, I'll point out that the .COM namespace isn't
>"overloaded" any more than the Delaware corporation namespace is
>"overloaded". The problem that is most immediately urgent to fix is
>the question of introducing competition in name registration. Many of
>us would like to see a system that permits multiple competing entities
>to register names in .COM; some of us want systems that are based on
>having multiple top level replacements for .COM. Anyone arguing that
>.COM is overloaded, however, isn't speaking fact.
>
Besides which, the existence of a single top-level .com domain is a great 
simplification for users locating and memorising companies' servers. No doubt 
may ways could be found but it is a great kiss-miss feature of the Internet. It 
would be worth some pain to maintain it. (But by all means let's have a co.us 
for any US companies without multinational aspirations)

-- 
Dirk Fieldhouse
fieldhouse@logica.com
c=gb;a=tmailuk;p=logica;
o=lg;ou1=lgwct;s=fieldhouse
+44 (171) 637 9111