On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
You say "names". But, is it "whois names" or "domain names"?
I mean "people useful" names. Whois is a protocol for accessing the
registration of names. DNS is a a protocol for distributing Records
Wrong.
Whois protocol is a protocol for accessing the registration of
names, not specifically domain names.
DNS, domain name system, is not a protocol but the system to manage
domain names.
I've never heard of such a system. I manage zone files with Vi or Emacs,
and RCS. I've heard there are some php scripts that do this quite nicely,
too. Microsoft has a nice application to do this, but I don't use the
Microsoft server. These are applications that are not the concern of the
IETF, nor of ICANN.
DNS protocol is the protocol to access domain names.
Yes, that is what I mean when I say "DNS".
The system, of course, includes registries, which may use any
additional protocol.
Registries of names are found all over
civilization. At the Department of Motor Vehicles, at the Patent and
Trademark Office, at the Department of State Division of Corporations,
etc.
That's why clarification that we are discussing on domain names of
DNS essentially important.
As you are talking about not domain names of DNS system but
other names, your statement has nothing to do with domain names.
Uhh, no. You don't seem to understand that names are abstract concepts,
and that the DNS is a communication protocol to associate the abstract
concept of a name designation with a concrete concept of a data like an IP
address.
A registry associates the abstract concept of a name with a concrete
concept of an organization or owner, and other adminstrative information.
Some of that information is helpful to the operation of DNS. However,
even without DNS, we would still need to have a registry to associate this
information, and to help construct LDAP directories, or X.500 directories.
The construction of these directories does not place any restrictions on
the registry. One cannot show up, and claim "I saw this via DNS, so
therefore it must be registered", or "I didn't see this in DNS, so
therefore it must not be registered" anymore than one can show up at the
corporations office with a coffee cup and a logo and say "I have a cup,
where is my certificate of incorporation?".
The remaining problem is that you don't understand "has nothing to do
with". But you can understand, I hope, that verisign is not the
trademark registry. Or, you may be able to consult with dictionaries.
I think you don't understand the difference between "one to one" and
"onto". I've specified exactly what the translation of the statements
"DNS has nothing to do with Registration.
Registration has something to do with DNS"
into mathematical language. Equivalently, one can say
"DNS implies nothing about registration.
Registration implies something about DNS"
This is equivalent to:
DNS !-> Registration
Registration -> DNS
As before.
It seems you don't understand this. The problem, it seems, is that you
can't understand something about logical connectives. Specifically, you
don't seem to understand the truth tables of statements of logic. Until we
resolve that, we can't communicate. I can recommend some textbooks for
you, if you like. Then we can communicate.
However, this failure to properly understand the relationship between DNS
and Registration is shared by a sizeable minority of people, who insist on
trying to use DNS to imply things about registration. This results in
much harm, as has been documented and explained on DNSOP and Namedroppers.
Numerous security vulnerabilties have been introduced as a result, and
continue to be introduced, as a result of this. We have considered
dropping Reverse DNS altogether from IPv6, and have implemented alternate
methods to replace Reverse DNS in applications such as traceroute. The
harms are serious, significant, and well documented.
Everything "broken" as a result of the Verisign wildcard fall into the
category of "misuse of the DNS system". All of these things have been
broken for sometime.
--Dean