|
|
Therefore concerning the Internet DNS, there are two governance "executive" bodies :
While the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) plays the role of a "legislative" body for both, with its RFCs. |
In fact, it is very fortunate that BIND allows to carry different resolving services related to different classes of network. 2.1.3 Resource Records : The data associated with domain names are contained in resource records, or RRs. Records are divided into classes, each of which pertains to a type of network or software. Currently, there are classes for internets (any TCP/IP-based internet), networks based on the Chaosnet protocols, and networks that use Hesiod software. (Chaosnet is an old network of largely historic significance.) The internet class is by far the most popular. (We're not really sure if anyone still uses the Chaosnet class, and use of the Hesiod class is mostly confined to MIT.) This possibility has been moslty ignored except for the proposal made by John C Klensin for a new class that is not limited to ASCII from its initial definitions. This would have allowed to a cleaner Internationalized Domain Name system, instead of relying on the patch that constitutes Punycode. However, the seamless implementation of such a two class system, where records of a new class are used as remedies to the shortcomings of the class "IN" would have created technical difficulties. These problems should not occur when starting with only one class, conceived from the onset for internationalisation. |
Now it is interesting to mention the
RFC 2929
CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS codes. See section 3.2. DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary relationship between the name space or root servers for one CLASS and those for another CLASS. The same name can have completely different meanings in different CLASSes although the label types are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. However, as global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates. The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future assignments are as follows: Decimal Hexadecimal 0 0x0000 - assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 1 0x0001 - Internet (IN). 2 0x0002 - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS. 3 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 1981]. 4 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987]. 5 - 127 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as data CLASSes only. 128 - 253 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as QCLASSes only. 254 0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136]. 255 0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035]. 256 - 32767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned by IETF Consensus. 32768 - 65280 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434]. 65280 - 65534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 65535 0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. This leaves the possibility of 216= 65536 - 5 ( taken by the IN, CH, HS, None, Any classes ) = 65531 classes ( among which 255 for private use ) that could be used to carry other DNS services, using BIND. |
ICANN cannot, in good faith, object to the use of yet another class, since ICANN
recommended in May 2001 this
approach :
Moreover, it should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a facility for future extensions that accommodates the possibility of safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet for experimental and other purposes. As noted in RFC 1034, the DNS includes a "class" tag on each resource record, which allows resource records of different classes to be distinguished even though they are commingled on the public Internet. For resource records within the standard root-server system, this class tag is set to "IN"; other values have been standardized for particular uses, including 255 possible values designated for "private use" that are particularly suited to experimentation.
Another view it is that the actual subnetwork of DNS servers ( in fact a P2P network, before the term was coined ) should be able carry several DNS systems, in other words to "degroup" the "lines" of this "commoun carrier" to introduce "competition". |
|
Net4D are classes of Next Generation Domain Services that are empowering the Semantic Web. Two main networks/services are for the moment being considered : Web4D: The Network of people. As an example of gTLDs with Web4D : the and Language related semantic extension or Linguistic SWgTLDs or LSWgTLDs. An extension shall be assigned to each language so that sites or sites' versions written in specific languages can be easily found and identified. It would facilate greatly the task of search engines and would foster linguistic diversity. The gist of the breaktrough is the following : Automatic translation would be much improved if automatic tools could work with several human certified translation of the same language. For example, if the same document has been available in English and in French by the authors on the same site, and translated by human users in Russian and Korean on other sites, it would be tremendous advantage for automatic translation tools to have access and make use of all existing versions in different languages of the same document. For example "Société Civile" would not be translated in yet other languages such as Italian as "Civil Company" with the help the english version. Of course, it is required that the translation tools could retrieve and identify the various versions at different locations, therefore the need for the ODRI, as well as standardized metadata. SWgTLDs could be the keys to multilinguism on the Web. Other possible SW gTLDs:
|
|
|