Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: karl.auerbach
Date/Time: Mon, October 23, 2000 at 7:10 PM GMT (Mon, October 23, 2000 at 11:10 AM PST)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: To much gloss, not enough detail that I can believe


        I have a hard time seeing why this experiment - and it is an experiment - ought not to be performed and demonstrated viable under some existing TLD... perhaps under - in order to demonstrate its technical and business viability.

In general I found this proposal to be lacking in technical specificity about what they are actually proposing to do.  Hence the uncertainty of understanding resulting in the paragraphs that follow:

In addition, given that domain names in .com and other existing TLDS can come and go, I wonder about foundation claim - that names in .dir will be stable enough to prevent Certificate flapping - are supportable.  For example what is "" on day one may be a different entity after a quick jaunt through UDRP-land.  And that would tend to render this proposal's claims somewhat illusory.

I am also wondering about whether this proposal will increase DNS traffic on the net - it occurred to me that much of what is being suggested could be done simply by using a TXT or other record as one of the records under the primary (i.e. or name.web registration.)  I don't see why it is necessary to have a parallal name, with all the synchronization problems that that engenders, simply in order to carry records that could have been carried under the principal domain name.  That duality, it seems to me, could double the amount of DNS traffic on the net should this proposal become a primary resource of the net.  Is the concern here based on a perceived inability of the operator of the primary zone (i.e. to maintain the new records properly and correctly?



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy