Well, it's a good thing we have you around to keep us honest.
On September 8, 2014 at 07:37 mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
wrote:
> 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
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
