On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Swerve wrote: > not sure of the .docs you are referring to re the "genericness" of .org... > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc920.txt BillX is refering to RFC1591 > > The DNS was never intended to be a "directory" service, defining what > > internet objects are. Simply where they are. > > > > Strings have the meaning that those who use them give to them. Agreed, I'm just on an idealistic, speculative bender... Heyall As BillX is affirming, the original description for .ORG was for a generic catch-all...but it DID unofficially evolve towards the widely held interpretation (by NSI as well as I recall) that I've been refering to here...That is until all three of the gTLD's were blended into a tasteless mush at some (also) undefined point. > anyhow, no need to worry about all this .dot stuff, cause > AOL/Time will own you soon. > And all you'll have to do is type in a keyword to get your daily rations. That's what some of my allusions are "drifting at"...In the absence of a properly mandated namespace via DNS the mass media power brokers WILL try to undermine the present namespace with closed (profitable) standards, that will cater to the lowest common denominator. If Friends.TV doesn't give you just that...then NBC/CBS/ABC/MSN/AOL (whatever) will come up with another way to allow easy, memorable, interactive access to these lucrative PrimeTime properties through the networks...and it won't likely be built on open standards either, right? Never mind... that's another huge can of Worms --- Bah... so I tried a little ironic role reversal with a couple of gTLD's... One TLD that had a set description that it never lived up to as everyone (and their brother's dog) registered under .COM with whatever came off the top of their head as they yearned to gain a presence online... compared to the other that started as a "catch-all", and wound up having more defined (though short lived) character than the mighty .COM after all. We could try and do the forensics on where .ORG picked up this "mandate" (and subsequently lost it) but we're too far off the beaten path for some people as it is, and this thread risks falling through a wormhole into ancient history anyhow... The point being that now all three of the interchangeable gTLD's are equally meaningless as far as public recognition goes...and the rest are following suit. I agree with you Bill that DNS isn't supposed to be a "Directory" service, but it IS supposed to be descriptive (without gettign semantic). Besides...wouldn't the ultimate/ideal Internet Directory somehow be built upon such grass roots ? DNS wasn't just about enabling queries for "where" a domain is (functional), but to also help illustrate "what" a domain is (descriptive). Otherwise nameless IP #'s would do just fine, right ? >From RFC883: (DNS) " A query names the domain name of interest and describes the type of resource information that is desired " Implementation and Specification (Paul Mockepetris) RFC883: " The domain name space, is a specification for a tree structured name space. Conceptually, each node and leaf of the domain name space tree names a set of information, and query operations are attempts to extract specific types of information from a particular set. " So if DNS is supposed to serve as intermediary to more memorable method of addressing/describing hosts on the Internet, I again make the point that this is being undermined by this trend towards homogenized TLD's. First by gTLD's that have lost their original purpose, then in re-purposed ccTLD's that don't honour their original national descriptions, and offer little to nothing that's new or innovative in their "re-incarnated" forms. At least .GOV .MIL and .EDU have remained dependable bastions, as we stagger into whatever .BIZ, .INFO .PRO .NAME .WHATEVER will actually stand for as descriptors of resources...though we can perhaps trust abit in the same self-describing "text string" theories that BillX reminds us of. perhaps the same ones that started to define .ORG along the previously stated lines. As you say Bill, "strings are what people make of them" - I'd just like to see some of these important variables pre-defined is all... Meanwhile, we can observe signs of what the Media/Telecom conglomerates have in store for us in the way of a functionaly intuitive, though proprietary namespace for the Infotainment Consumers and Net Hordes of tommorow... In the Private Domain ShawnAndreRoberge aka: In the Public Domain Jo Ferguson ( nom de plume ) PS: I'm personally counting on the Giants to be too technically parasitic, creatively bankrupt, and culteraly inept to make any difference to our beloved DNS and TCP/IP...even if they do manage to innovate the television/radio networks before the Internet Community can beat them to a quantum shift in "Prime Time" interactive media netcasting...There's so much more to come. > > Very often,... power corrupts. > > Swerve > > > > > The DNS was never intended to be a "directory" service, defining what > > internet objects are. Simply where they are. > > > > Strings have the meaning that those who use them give to them. > > > > I am personally of the opinion that chartered/restricted TLDs should > > exist only where a substantive case can be made that it is needed, and > > that otherwise, the public/open market should make the decision about > > how those strings are best used when decided when/where to register. > > > > ..org was actually the ultimate "Generic" TLD from the start. > > > > It's actual definition was "anything that doesn't fit elsewhere." > > > > The entire concept that it was some non-commercial thing from the > > start is a misnomer that you can see when you review the relevant > > documents. > > > > Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 5:08:16 AM, S.A.Roberge wrote: > > > > > >> At this point perhaps someone could clarify what actually happened to the > >> social ideals behind the .ORG namespace and the technical nature of the > >> .NET TLD ??? Did they simply succomb to commercial anarchy, and > >> voracious demand for new registrations, or do redundant registrations for > >> the sake of preserving brand identity come into play at this point. > > > >> ( eg: free market forces + weak mandates = extra Registrar revenues ) > > > > > >> Personallly I'm hoping that the various communities behind this Tech > >> actually have a vision for TLD's - One that will innovate upon the (as > >> yet) relatively free and open networks, and possibly spawn some groovy new > >> RFC's that will impact everything right up to the application layer? > > > > > > >
