Page Not Found

Error: Invalid Request

Comments

Nice concept, but se habla email? Jothan Frakes – Jun 30, 2008 2:40 PM PST

I took a peek at the SocialDNS concept and this is cool. It is like DNS but not like DNS.

The helper app loads reasonably well, but folks get confused by helper apps.

It nice to have some of these but one of the primary things that has to be addressed is functional email for namespace to get traction. This was one of the largest setbacks to IDN as the standards were forming and made it to IDNA.

I'd at least also mention that as an open conflict, because unless it is identified, folks' expectations would be that they would work just like standard namespace.

Anyway, nice technology. Looks like the old new.net stuff, but with a 'tweest'.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Thanks for the comments and Pedro Garcia Lopez – Jul 04, 2008 1:17 AM PST

Thanks for the comments and the email idea.

Only one comment. New.net is a completely different approach, they are an alternative DNS root (DNS technology) and they earn money with domain names. SocialDNS is a special namespace for Web resources (go://) where domains are free and users decide on conflicts.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

What about CNRP? Len Charest – Jul 03, 2008 4:21 PM PST

How does SocialDNS compare with the Common Name Resolution Protocol (RFC 3367) and the existing go: URI scheme (RFC 3368)? Does SocialDNS build on these Internet standards?

These questions are probably moot since many people have grown comfortable with using a Google "I'm feeling lucky" search as a substitute for keyword-based name resolution.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Two comments:1) SocialDNS has no Pedro Garcia Lopez – Jul 04, 2008 1:40 AM PST

Two comments:

1) SocialDNS has no relationship with CNRP. If SocialDNS is a success we will follow the standardisation track (it would be a defacto standard).

2) About Google "I'm feeling lucky"

I really think that naming and search are tightly related. But Google is not a naming service. I instead believe that we should answer to other more important questions:

a) Does Internet need a namespace controlled by the users ?
Who is the owner of all the names in all cultures ?
Should users pay for domain names ?
Should users and organizations pay for managing their subdomains and TLDs ?

I believe that users give a present to the system when they add their domains and meta-information. Let users control a namespace.

b) Should the naming information be open and free ?

Publishing the entire database (hosts.xml) and server software (WebTLD) SocialDNS is an open and transparent search engine. Third parties can study and create new search services around this information.
Should search engines give their indexes for free ?

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Re CNRP: I suggest that Len Charest – Jul 04, 2008 12:18 PM PST

Re CNRP: I suggest that you read RFCs 3367 and 3368. The IETF has already standardized the core of what you are trying to do with SocialDNS--i.e., keyword-based name resolution. There is already an Internet standard URI scheme named "go:". Don't reinvent the wheel.

Re Google: I agree that it is not a naming service. But many people use it that way. Why do you think they do that?

Reply | Link | Report Problems

CNRP Pedro Garcia Lopez – Jul 07, 2008 12:13 AM PST

You should better read what is SocialDNS. It is quite different from CNRP. Just try to understand the concept of WebTLDs.

Google: why people use Google ? Too deep question for me ... I also use google, it is a nice search engine.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Relationship to RFC 3368 and Google "I am feeling lucky" Pedro Garcia Lopez – Jul 09, 2008 7:14 AM PST

You can find an extended explanation about this question in the SocialDNS wiki: http://ast-deim.urv.cat/social/Related_Projects#Other_projects

Best regards !

Reply | Link | Report Problems