John, At 2016-07-11 01:02:19 -0400 "John R Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> I agree that a protocol that had versioning and signalling and negotiation > and other stuff would be cool, but it wouldn't be DNS. With respect to > the stuff in the manifesto, I think it needs to take another step back and > figure out what problem(s) the DNS is supposed to solve, which affects > questions like whether wildcards are a good idea. I'm happy to call it anything other than DNS. ;) But I take your point, that we should definitely make sure that we solve the right problems. I guess thinking about what DNS gets right doesn't really address *why* people use DNS in the first place. > A while back I wrote a draft that put a B-tree in the DNS, for fairly > efficient prefix matches for lookups, with the intended application being > IPv6 DNSBLs. Last year I wrote a draft that put a state machine for a DFA > for regular expressions in the DNS, to do more general string pattern > matching, with the intended application being e-mail address local parts. > Or look at the DBOUND drafts that Casey Deccio and I wrote, that use > wildcards in parallel subdomains to publish boundary info sort of like the > PSL. Hm... interesting. For me the question is, do these ideas affect the fundamental architecture? If I understand them, they are transformations that take place on queries at specific labels, right? The hierarchical nature of the DNS remains, right? > Even if the main application is still finding addresses for host names, > I'd want to push what SRV does into the protocol so I can say I want to > find the web server or the mail server for foo.example, and it'd tell me > the IP addresses and the ports and some hints about what sort of > connection to make, TLS over TCP or whatever. Yes, that sounds good. Perhaps another way to say it is that the main application would actually be finding how to connect to a specific service rather than finding addresses for hosts? > We already have a draft for DNS over HTTP. Perhaps we can bootstrap from > there once we understand what we're trying to do. I'm not sure I see the relationship, but I won't rule it out. :) Cheers, -- Shane
pgp0fIdKa45uU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
