Keith Moore wrote:
Ed,
without getting too long-winded
me too :-)
- I did not say the DNS is not useful. I said it has design flaws, and
I named some of them. These flaws are examples of what NOT to do
with IP.
- A service that maps names of local resources to distant addresses
is a local problem.
- I did not say the DNS is worse than the HOSTS.TXT table it replaced.
In fact, it clearly isn't. But the DNS is not a magic wand either, besides its
design flaws.
- I do not think the DNS can be phased out any time soon, or foreseeable.
- However, one must ask what comes after DNS -- because something will.
I fully expect this "something" to interoperate with DNS.
- The same arguments apply to IP -- what comes after IPv4, IPv6? Something
will, and I expect they all to interoperate. NATs help.
- I think ICANN is a mistaken way to solve a non-existing problem. The
non-existing problem is how to govern the Internet. The mistaken way is
by central control.
- The Internet depends on the DNS, it should be the other way around.
Further, this dependence creates an "ideal" control handle, which is
useful for some that do want to unduly control many aspects of the
Internet for their special interests -- and to their detriment, paradoxically.
If a technical system can be designed that would negate such a handle
to all, this would be intrinsically fair and defuse much of the "problems"
we have with DNS and its control (ICANN).
- The IETF abhors liability. However, its actions have defined the DNS,
its flaws, helped shape ICANN, its flaws, and are now trying to shape IP,
and its flaws. It is time we all think a bit about the highly leveraged game
being played here, with near 800 million Internet users. MIME's rule of
requiring the least and accepting the most is the best impedance matching
rule we can have, IMO, to allow different systems to interface.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck