Re: Name ownership and LLMNR (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name R

--On 1. september 2005 14:14 +0100 Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:

> > LLMNR allows me to treat names in a different way than mDNS does.
> > If I have a name that I'm certain I own (this box is, with high
> > certainty, the only one in the world named
> > HALVESTR-W2K02.emea.cisco.com), LLMNR allows me to assert that name on a
> > LAN even when the DNS is not available, or when that name is not
> > currently asserted in the DNS.
> This kind of naming is not possible for ad-hoc networks without Internet
> connectivity and without any domain name registration.
it's certainly *possible* (if each participant has some relationship to a 
domain name owner). The question is whether it's *desirable*.
I see naming as 3 parts:

- I pick a name
- I assert that the name belongs to me
- You choose to believe it (or not).

With DNS names, "I pick a name" involves seeing which names are free in a 
DNS zone I have a relationship to (which may be dyndns.org, for instance), 
and doing the admin steps to reserve it.
"I assert" involves me putting it into a DNS zone, and loading that zone 
onto a DNS server, where you'll presumably pick it up.
"You choose" in the DNS case is because you believe (presumably) in the 
chain of servers between you, the root node and the authoritative server 
for my domain; in the LLMNR *or* mDNS case, it would be "because he's here 
and he says so".
This could be backed up with certificates if you wanted to, of course.

The difference between LLMNR and mDNS here seems to be that mDNS *requires* 
me to use two different names in the two different cases; LLMNR, while it 
certainly *permits* me to do so, does not *require* it.
This is descending into a philosophical debate... "what's in a name".......

pgpOKvkmXr2cB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf