Please elaborate. I agree that the current resolution protocol is not
perfect but what is wrong with the semantics of domain names?
As we have known since the early 80s, naming the host has nothing to
do with the problem at hand. It is sloppy and gets in the way of
getting it right. Currently, domain name is a synonym for an
IP-address. The IP-address names the interface and is largely
redundant since the MAC address does the same thing.
Naming the host is sometimes useful for network management purposes,
but really has nothing to do with the problem of forwarding or
delivering packets. I realize there is a lot of sentimental
attachment to the idea of naming a host, but as I said that was a
sloppy habit we got in very early and for some reason sloppiness has
prevailed.
The "entity" to be named is whatever the packets are delivered to.
That may reside on a host, but that fact is purely coincidental. As
long as sentimentality trumps logic, it will be difficult to get it
right, but in the current climate it will be possible to publish a
lot of papers.
Take care,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf