John Day wrote:
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
"The problem at hand" is what, exactly? Concretely and specifically.
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.
Ignoring, for the moment, that a domain name does not always map to an IP
Address, nevermind that it often maps to a set of them, the fact of mapping is
not quite the same as being "synonymous". It can be -- and often is --
equivalent to find a path to the named resource. A path is not a synonym.
www.example.com is a common name for the an organization's online web presence.
That sort of description of the name is quite different from the mechanical and
narrow simplicity of a host name or a synonym for a *set of* IP Addresses that
might refer to a single machine or to multiple.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf