From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
There are several crucial attributes that are hard to
replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query
for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same
answer everyone else should get.
This is the problem with "alternate" roots -- depending on
where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also
what differentiates it from a search engine -- my
applications don't know how to make choices.
Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people
do not want to connect to the rest of the world. I have a private zone
set up in my house on .local for testing. I am sure there are similar
military nets.
I have no idea why anyone would prefer (say) .gprs over .gprs.arpa or
the like.
Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do try to
do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude .ca).
Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the
appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to
"Google-bombing" to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail.
I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I
understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine
rather than a name,service pair to a machine.
Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that try to
change this but people continue to insist on the original architecture
as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the shouting that has gon
on around attempts to store policy information in the DNS.
Today a DNS name is a conceptual relationship to a collection of
services.
Finally, you need locality: people within an organization
must be able to create their own names.
Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented
local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces
hierarchy where none exists.
There is a distinction between commercial, educational and non-profit
enterprises but it is not a very important one. It is certainly not
important enough for them to require separate name spaces. Different
TLDs for different countries is also kinda bogus.
If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much
information people cared to put in it. We would work out some other
scheme for load balancing etc. The .edu/.com scheme really reflects the
NSF funding criteria of the day.
However the fact remains that we are not redesigning DNS from scratch
and it has largely been fixed already - if we choose to recognize the
fact.
One point made by Michael I think people should really take account of:
What I find humorous is that this community's default position
seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are
professionals
at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what
you'd think we're good at....
This is international power politics at the highest level. The real
issue here is not governance of the Internet, that is just a convenient
pretext.
There is a diplomatic battle going on here that threatens to become a
real war. Diplomats prefer to avoid wars so they invented 'protocol'
which at certain times mean that the participants go off and find
something they can fight over that allows them to demonstrate the stakes
and their positions with less risk of actual fighting.
This is of course the main reason why most people would prefer to avoid
that type of involvement.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf