Hi
This is my first posting to the IETF mailing lists, so please forgive me if I
do something wrong.
<snipped to get to the crux>
Solution 3. we keep going but we rebuild anew. This seems to be the
impossible ICANN policy in building their Intercontract system. It
obviously does not work and leads to strong oppositions.
The reason why I join the IETF debate is that I think
technology may be the
response. The same as the namespace agreement has aged, the same the
technology has aged. We are endlessly arguing on old stuff. Aftyer 20
years, we need a clean sheet review of the DNS, based on
today and future
users' needs. IMHO this goes into two directions: a new DNS
core system
analysis (DNS.2) and an extended DNS services (DNS+) logic.
IMHO in going
ahead in that two directions (as the iDNs show the path) we will soon
discover that the ICANN preoccupations and solutions are
totally outdated
by what we will uncover and specify.
Obviously we will meet the same kind of oppositions to
DNS.2/DNS+ than was
met for IPv6. The question is then to know if this effort
will be carried
within the IETF or not. I think DNS.2 cannot be specified
outside of the
IETF but a DNS.1.B can. Most of DNS+, which comes before /
aside / on top
of the DNS, can be privately developped, but without proper
integration.
This would lead to a large number of proprietary solutions
and to large
splits in the usage of the network.
So the question is not to know if we have to make that effort
or not, but
if it will be a clean move or not. To take a comparison,
situation in the
DNS today is like if IPv8 was the only option.
Sorry to have been long. This all I had to say.
jfc
IMHO Networking and Internetworking has changed in many ways since it was first
introduced.
I am fully aware of the history if the Internet and of how basic networks work.
*BUT*
The fundamentals of networking have not dramatically changed in all the time
that we have used networks.
Another, *BUT* and it's a big but, there is no way the original designers of
networks could have any conception of just how much they have grown and
expanded into the Corporate networks and the Internet that we have today.
Since the underlying DNS structure was basic and simple it still works today,
but (as many more technically qualified people could/will point out), only
just! and it's limitations are showing.
In practical reality it is simply not possible to "rip it out and start again".
IPv4 needs to be replaced, however since NAT and a few other "temporary fixes"
have given it extra life people have not moved onto IPv6 as much they should
have(?)
So solution 4 needs to be designed, IMHO we need a solution that can take what
we have today and "evolve" into tomorrow's solution, which will actually be
solution 5, and what we should have if we "ripped it out and started again"
BUT (sorry I have to keep using this word atm) where to start.....
Regards
Sean Jones