Home | Contact | Presentations | ![]() |
Robert Shaw's Weblog | Updated: 11/12/2002; 15:29:13 |
Naming, Numbering and Addressing robertshaw.info references to telecommunications and Internet naming, numbering and addressing issues. ![]() Number and Domain Name PortabilityThis Internet-draft from Neustar staff is a great primer on numbering portability in the Public/Global Switched Telephone Network (PSTN/GSTN). Service provider portability, meaning the ability to switch service providers and retain existing numbering resources, is an important component of any pro-competitive telecom market liberalization. The concepts behind number portability, preventing service lock-in, is what made the IAHC propose a similar model for the generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) marketplace back in 1996 (as well as the pioneering work of Nominet in the split registry/registrar model). As an original member of the IAHC who pushed for this, there are times, five years later, when I wonder whether the regulatory costs of mandating portability and overseeing a large number of competing registrars are worth it. 3:09:14 PM![]() When solving problems, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves.There's been considerable debate on the IETF main discussion list about whether it'd be appropriate to deploy a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) on top of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). As there is no single rooted deployed PKI system with a single root certificate authority (CA), this has lead to a deeper debate about what really is the right underlying model: the single root as argued for the DNS in RFC 2826 or some form of cross-recognition scheme across roots as pursued in the PKI world. (As background, this ITU paper from 1999 explains why there exists widely different approaches to PKI). The debate has deftly exposed a fundamental inconsistency in people's reasoning: there is wide acceptance of multiple root CAs but total intolerance of a multiple rooted DNS. In this post, Peter Deutsch was brave enough to point out the logical fallacy of holding both views simultaneously. 7:05:04 AM![]()
|
|