> Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
> > therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
> > is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
> > the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
> > statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative.
like Paul, i'm not commenting on the specific technical value of the
draft. i haven't read the updated version of the draft. however, when i
read the previous version, i remember that to be practical it requires
a greenfield implementation or would have to be represented in a dns
system other than the one common root system used on the internet. almost
as if it could just as easily be an entirely standalone namemapping
system instead of DNS.
also, as i recall when this draft was discussed before:
1)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> I would put it much more concisely: this is a solution looking
> for a problem.
2) this draft seemed to be the result of some thesis project in the p2p
space that aimed to solve the thesis problems by changing dns rather
than solving the problems by utilizing dns
3) there was much assumption and conclusions that weren't anywhere near
consensus. at minimum there existed so many empty phrases ("IPv6 is
large") as to hide value that could be taken away and reorganized
into a draft that this WG could do something with, if we had a problem
this draft could address.
i'll try and find time to read the new version to see if anything changed,
but based on the last draft, i don't think this should be a WG priority
or work-item without first a problem statement that we can all agree on.
-- bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
