Barry Shein wrote:
> Understand these were speaking notes and it was safe to assume the
> audience basically understood DNS so it wasn't my intention to give an
> exhaustive introduction to how DNS works.
Surprisingly many people who basically understand DNS have the
same misunderstanding as you, which is why some people believe
in NDN.
> There also seems to be some splitting of hairs over the meaning of
> "site" in your response. That is, some sort of physical boundary vs an
> authoritative boundary.
Then, "site" based FQDN can not be used for scalable routing.
> At any rate my proposal doesn't eliminate hierarchical addresses,
See above.
> One could use the FQDNs themselves as hierarchical
> addresses at least as an external representation.
You are trying to define something not usable for scalable
routing a hierarchical address, which is as bad as your
attempt to distort the definition of "site".
Masataka Ohta
