Implementation questions (digressing from...) / A DNAME issue

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jan 5 15:09:48 CET 2009


At 21:57 02/01/2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>If someone is going to complain that this is way more complicated,
>hard to do, has nasty side effects and needs a lot of development,
>well, yes.  Sorry, no free lunches here. This is indeed a very
>expensive lunch.  But one that, I think, is possible for zone
>operators who want to support that level of flexibility.

Dear Andrew,
you point here the necessity for lead users, small ccTLD and 
geocultural TLD projects, like those of the Multilinc initiative to 
either,  [1] obtain from the IETF, or from somewhere else, a solution 
which is transparent (including in terms of costs) to languages and 
scripts, or to [2] build a FLOSS Generic NIC solution that may become 
their own common solution.

The first possibility is with this WG-IDNSABIS.

In the later case many points you and others pointed out as necessary 
to a future DNS come to mind. Why to carry two major successive 
development efforts to support people, mostly with no money, just to 
permit rich people to try to survive the crisis they co-created (if 
you know the amount of money capitalised on domain names today at 
extravagant values, you know what I mean).

So, you are right, there is no free lunch here. There are lunches for 
us (like Multilinc initiative) to pay to developping countries and 
projects. So, we need to build an economic model not so much of the 
future return, but just to foot the immediate development and 
deployment costs and to subsidise it one way or another.

So we work at minimum. What is really mandatory for us to support? We 
need to get specifications.

- one set of specification to consider is interoperability with IDNA
- another set of specifications is the future operating budget. Our 
budget limit is very simple: what a one single part-tim voluntary, 
plus a three domain names monthly turn-over can pay in terms of 
access and hosting for the genenic itself. You see that this prevent 
the possibility of any other delivery than on an "as is" bass and 
best effort to comply with network RFC. Strict application related 
constraints consideration by 10.000 TLD Managers is as a management 
Utopia as DNSSEC's, from our point of view.
- others come from a full support of semantic addressing.
- simple and robust domain name management logic that will be 
"reusable" (DDDS, Registries).

jfc





More information about the Idna-update mailing list