[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[Vint Cerf]

i hope HTML5 instead :-)

v


On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> Yep, we're on the same page.  Email portability exists now, if you just
> get a domain name per recipient.  I suspect the DNS today couldn't
> handle that if too many people did it.  Yes, yuch.  But a similar
> mechanism must exist today inside the telephone world so it's proven
> possible.
>
> I think eventually we'll all have portable email addresses.  Not too
> long either.  Our addresses might just be our cell phone numbers.  Why
> not...email and voicemail aren't all that different except at the very
> endpoints of the path.
>
> Naah, I'm not mad about the encoding in 733.  But I'm happy that
> structured data encoding has finally caught on with XML.  If those now
> ancient mail protocols got a facelift today, I bet they'd be based on
> XML.
>
> /Jack
>
>
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 07:40 -0400, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2010 12:12 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> > If "jack at 3kitty.org" is the example of forwarding you have in mind,
>> > that's not how it works.  When I change providers, I move my 3kitty.org
>> > service from one provider to another,
>> ...
>> > I do have a bunch of xxx at 3kitty.org mailboxes, and they all must move
>> > together.
>>
>>
>> You are emulating a version of exactly the service I described towards the end
>> of my note, modulo the extra forwarding hop. It's key feature is that it is
>> independent of ISPs and it does not require their cooperation.
>>
>> However, as you note, all of the mailboxes must move together:  granularity is
>> at the domain name level, not the mailbox level.  To get per-user granularity,
>> you have to encode it in the domain name, given the way email routing works.
>>
>> The reason you can have "direct" routing, without having to go through a
>> forwarder is that you control the DNS MX record.  In effect that means an MX
>> record per "customer", if not per "mailbox".  Again, that's doable today and it
>> is done today.  The challenge is scaling that model up to a mass market.  In
>> effect, it means an MX per user (or maybe per family).  Yuch.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> ps.  I figure you're still unhappy we didn't adopt your encoding scheme when we
>> did RFC 733...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>