IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 10 May 2007 18:48 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDgo-0007dy-VK; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:48:35 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlmZe-0005kd-Q7 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 09:51:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlmZe-0005kV-Gf for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 09:51:22 -0400
Received: from ppsw-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlmZc-0003Mo-6r for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 09:51:22 -0400
X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned
X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:45579) by ppsw-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1HlmYp-0000NB-8e (Exim 4.63) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 09 May 2007 14:50:31 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1HlmYp-000542-KC (Exim 4.54) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 09 May 2007 14:50:31 +0100
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:50:31 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol
In-Reply-To: <4641CA52.70504@cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705091449360.26169@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705041801060.14418@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <20070507082737.GB21759@nic.fr> <46413DD7.8020702@cs.utk.edu> <20070509121703.GA21070@nic.fr> <4641CA52.70504@cs.utk.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:48:33 -0400
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> Fourth, for a variety of reasons, DNS names are not and have never been
> adequate as general purpose endpoint identifiers, and this situation is
> getting worse rather than better.  One reason is that DNS names are not
> equivalent to host names, and emphatically not equivalent to
> distinguished host names, and haven't been so at least since the web
> came into existence.  A given DNS name might be bound to a single host,
> multiple hosts having more-or-less equivalent function, a service, a
> community of users, or whatever; the binding might be stable or
> ephemeral; and the name might or might not be suitable as a
> distinguished name (one chosen preferentially over others for use in
> indicating that host, group of hosts, service, whatever).  There's no
> way to tell.

All of this is true for IP addresses as well.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
NORTH FITZROY SOLE: SOUTHWESTERLY 6 TO GALE 8. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. RAIN OR
DRIZZLE. MODERATE OR POOR.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email