Subject: Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters

From: JIM FLEMING <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:09:34 -0500

As many people are aware, the "toy" IPv4 Internet is useful for
doing “proof-of-concept” development of a TLD and all the needed
infrastructure, prior to becoming a commercial fixture, set in
bedrock on stable IPv6, IPv8 and/or IPv16 networks. As shown below,
there are several companies participating in this grand experiment.
I think everyone agrees that the Internet will not “crash”.

Multiple “roots” are no longer needed. At best they are out-dated
publishers of information about TLD Nameserver Clusters. Some people
apparently still find it useful to depend on a “root”, as opposed to
finding the “dominant” TLD Clusters via simple software.

Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy.
Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar
or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster
for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. The
SLD.TLD cluster is of course usually unique. How an end user’s resolver
locates the SLD.TLD Cluster does not impact the end-users’s resolver
interaction with the SLD.TLD Cluster.

In this grand “proof-of-concept” experiment, it appears that the
TLDs, .SHOP, .TRAVEL, .FREE and possibly .INFO may be the landmark
TLDs which test the notion of multiple TLD Clusters. There do not
appear to be hundreds in this class, as many people claimed there would
be. For some users, it might be more desirable to use the multiple
TLD Cluster approach to ensure more stability. In the future, the .COM
TLD will also likely become structured this way, in order to ensure
that the underlying registry can be changed, by turning off the old
one and allowing traffic to be handled by the new .COM TLD Cluster.
If that does not occur, the claim will always be made that the
incumbent registry can not be changed. People want registries to
be changed, without impacting service.

It will be interesting to see how this grand “proof-of-concept”
experiment evolves on the legacy IPv4 Internet. If multiple TLD
Clusters prove to be useful, more desirable, more stable, etc. I would
think all engineers would recommend them for future Internet architectures.
The IETF seems to be silent about Multiple TLD Clusters.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

------------- Dominant Proof-of-Concept Participants

http://www.name-space.com
http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html
(* first 20 TLDs)

.SHOP  <<<<<
.SPACE
.SEX
.ART
.ZONE

.MUSIC
.ONLINE
.CONSULTING
.DESIGN
.TRAVEL   <<<<<

.MEDIA
.NEWS
.DIRECT
.MAIL
.WORLD

.MAG
.AUCTION
.FREE    <<<<<
.CAM
.SERVICE

-----------------------

http://www.New.Net

.SHOP    <<<<<
.MP3
.INC
.KIDS
.SPORT

.FAMILY
.CHAT
.VIDEO
.CLUB
.HOLA

.SOC
.MED
.LAW
.TRAVEL   <<<<<
.GAME

.FREE     <<<<
.LTD
.GMBH
.TECH
.XXX

----------------------

ISOC/ICANN

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html
http://www.icann.org/tlds/

.FIRM
.STORE
.WEB
.ARTS
.REC

.INFO     <<<<
.NOM
.AERO
.BIZ
.COOP

.INFO     <<<<
.MUSEUM
.NAME
.PRO
_____

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

---------------------------------------------

---

From: JIM FLEMING <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:38:27 -0500

Your comments have been noted for future reference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:26 AM
To: JIM FLEMING; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD
Clusters

Leslie Daigle, working group chair for the URN wg (which doesn't have email
access at the moment) have after getting this email read to her asked me to
as Area Director post this message to this mailing list:

The message posted by mr Fleming is out of scope for this mailing list.

   Patrik Faltstrom
   Co-Area Director, Applications Area

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:25:50 +0200

Patrik Faltstrom

---

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:01:07 -0400

> The message posted by mr Fleming is out of scope for this mailing list.

Inasmuch as TLDs affect some forms of URI construction fairly
fundamentally, it doesn't seem wildly out of scope.

Is it possible to request a clarification of why this is out of scope
and where at the IETF it would be more appropriate to discuss its impact
on URIs?  The only other forum for URI discussion I'm aware of is
[email-masked], and that's not a part of the IETF.

I'm aware that this is a complex political issue, and that the scope of
this list is technically URNs, but there's plenty of work being done
here on URI resolution.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html

---

From: JIM FLEMING <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:00:36 -0500

If you live in 2 dimensions...
you might consider [email-masked]

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

...for those in 3 dimensions**...

http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

Jim Fleming

** for 4 dimensions...
http://www.flatland.com/
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/eaa/FL.HTM

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD
Clusters

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:44:39 +0900

>[email-masked], and that's not a part of the IETF.

[email-masked] is the continuation of the IETF uri mailing list
(see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/).
W3C offered to host it in mid 1999 when bunyip (the
former host) looked for a new host.

As the URI WG has completed, this mailing list has the
same status as any other mailing list of an IETF WG that has
completed. I'm not sure whether the formal status of such
lists is defined/discussed anywhere, but I guess it's fairly
usual to use such lists for discussions related to the topic,
because it's always possible that questions come up after
a WG has completed.

Regards,   Martin.