[Top] [All Lists]

Re: new DNS classes

2017-07-04 13:39:35

John C Klensin wrote:

--On Tuesday, July 04, 2017 6:53 PM +0100 Jim Reid
<jim(_at_)rfc1035(_dot_)com>  wrote:

On 4 Jul 2017, at 18:49, Paul Vixie<paul(_at_)redbarn(_dot_)org>  wrote:

while IETF governs the protocol, ICANN only governs the IN
class. i expect that there will be other classes some day, in
order to avoid some aspect of ICANN.
Attempts have already been made to do just that. It would be
nice not to have to put out those fires all over again.

Jim, Paul,

First of all, if only because "QCLASS=ANY" is supposed to do
something sensible, one really cannot have different, per-Class,
roots (more of that argument and the difficulties for many of
the things people have wanted to use CLASSes for in recent years
appears in draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless).   While I don't
believe "useless", I don't see any hope for using the CLASS
mechanism to "avoid ... ICANN".

half of the foundational specification of the dns protocol assumes that classes are inside rrsets. the other half assumes that zones are inside classes. when i started on bind in 1990 or so it tried to do both. by 1995 i had disambiguated in favour of zones-in-classes, and all others since then have done likewise. qtype=any was a casualty of that work.

separately, i agree that using class to avoid icann would be useless, if by useless you mean "there's no way to create a competitor to IN". however, the chaos and hesiod classes did get used at varying times, and i can easily imagine something like bluetooth or appletalk or lopan (each of which has its own naming system, so, these aren't practical examples but rather theoretical ones) using the dns protocol on a different class, and passing ICANN like ships in the night.

Having enough of the world get aggravated enough at ICANN ...

for those keeping score, i have been aggravated at ICANN, but am not now. i consider the recent transition away from NTIA, and the corporate governance changes made to enable that transition, to have been well considered and well executed, and to have benefited from almost two decades of experience and evolution. if i were designing a replacement for the dns protocol today, i would do all in my power to keep the "one internet, one namespace" element reflected by ICANN's current role. so, please don't misunderstand my participation in this thread as agitation for further evolutionary change. i think we're in a good place now.

P Vixie