On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 08:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
BIND is software. DNS is a protocol specification and a global
service. If you are concerned about "feature creep" for the DNS
service, what are examples?
BIND is I believe the most heavily deployed and flawed implementation of
the DNS protocol. As time goes on its becoming more and more apparent
that the only individual without his head up his ass is conceivably
Daniel Bernstein. I wish more people would simply write software which
is responsible for running core Internet technologies without all the
stupid whistles and utter crap.
We need a tight and concise protocol with no MAY's and all MUSTS and no
crap that can be implemented in the fewest lines of code possible and
afford the most portability possible to see that adoption, integration
etc.. is as painless as possible. Nothing that is resultant in change
is going to be easy, and so we should make sure that our time up at bat
is going to count. We've (not indicating this list, but generically
speaking) already struck out at least once here, and I believe I'm being
generous in stating that.
The concern that was raised was about adoption -- deployment and
operation -- barriers, not about protocol specification
differences.
See below.
There is a long and painful history that shows an enormous amount
of resistance to new infrastructure services.
I believe there is an equally lengthy painful history of protocol
abuse. We're dealing with ancient systems which were designed either
when no one had a clue the Internet would grow this large, or such as
the case with DNS, everyone keeps finding "features" to keep piling on
top. Much like a well organized source code tree, where you organize
related functions into separate files so should we attempt to do with
these protocols.
I come from the line of thinking that we have a very unique opportunity
here. EVERYONE hates spam. The entire world will get behind whatever
it takes that will stop this flagrant abuse of the Internet Mail
architecture. I don't believe that any group has had such an advantage
to date, and I say we use this to our advantage to come up with the best
possible solution with this in mind. If it works, people will do
whatever is necessary provided its possible. SPF is a perfect example.
Its a broken protocol which abuses the DNS system and has serious flaw
as regards forwarding yet by my count there are in excess of
600,000-800,000 domains publishing records for this. People are
latching on to whatever they can do to stop the spam. We should be
paying attention to this and using it to our advantage!
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
^ ( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|+|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-clear/attachments/20041004/616a415c/attachment.bin