see inline.
Warren Kumari wrote on 2022-08-11 10:20:
Warren’s meta-comment -[ Please read this ]-
thanks for this, it was marvelously clarifying. i have a quibble which
might best be taken as a potential warning. but first, let me emphasize:
TL;DR: Domain names are older than the DNS protocol and have always been
used in multiple contexts. DNS naming conventions and protocol are by
far the most widely used naming system in the public Internet, and have
provided an extremely useful naming space default for Internet hosts and
users. ...
it's very much worth re-reading RFC 921 and RFC 952 to understand how it
was that domain-style names (an RFC 952 term, which RFC 921 described as
"structured names" or "hierarchical names") preceded what we today call
the "domain name system." we ought to have built in a carve-out for
domain-style / hierarchical / structured names explicitly known to not
be part of the domain name system. it's not too late; see warren's draft
for a way to fix in 2022 what we broke in 1984.
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-15.html
i think a lot of us in the 1980's didn't realize that connectivity would
never be end to end, and that concentric rings of connectivity would
always exist, and that no universal naming system could encompass it
all, but that one universal name space absolutely could do so if
properly future-proofed.
... So, I withdrew my request for presentation time, but I *am* still
planning on organizing a group to try and get some better focused
discussions on this entire topic. So, watch this space!
fingers crossed -- sign me up!
----------------------------------
now for my quibble, which might be taken as a warning.
FAQ - Namespaces (please also see the meta-comment at the top of this email)
---------------------------
1:
... It also
needs to work with existing applications, like 'ssh' and 'ping' and
browsers and anywhere else you can realistically expect a name to show
up ...
it does not. the dns is overwhelmingly used to reach web services,
whether those are "sites" or API's. the web community eventually lost
confidence in the evolution of Do53 and pushed DoH and now DoQ, just as
thry lost confidence in the evolution of TCP and pushed QUIC. if that
community loses confidence in the evolution of DNS and pushes some new
web-only naming system, they may succeed but if they fail it won't be
because of shell commands like ssh or ping. in fact it's more likely
that shell-containing systems will add support for "W3NS" or whatever.
we must be responsive to the community of interest, or risk losing it.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
