[DNSOP] Re: [dtn] Re: An Interplanetary DNS Model

[Scott Johnson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marc,


>>> Why are you against leaving the current TLDs implicitly on Earth
>>> by default?
>>> Right. One do not need a special TLD for space. We can use what we have and it just works fine.
>>
>> I do not disagree with this notion as respects my proposed 
>> architecture. 3rd level domains mapped to off-world domains works just 
>> fine, for the low low price of annual domain renewal.  a tld 
>> representing each remote world is preferable, however, because it is 
>> just "cooler;" easier to use and more memorable than a much longer 
>> domain.  This, however, assumes we are talking about the same proposal, 
>> which we are not.
>>
>>> One has just to be careful on remote resolution so that it contains what is needed: trust chain, local names, ...
>>>
>>
>> Lets be clear here, Marc.  You are talking about a completely different solution than I am; one predicated on IP only.
>
> But the remote resolution is relevant to any DNS infra in mostly 
> isolated networks. Hence my comment and reference to the draft, as 
> information on how to do that.

Fair enough.

>
>> Your comment on this thread, without context, only serves to confuse 
>> the other participants.
>
> Sorry. Not the intent. Not the reality.

I will grant not the intent, but the effect is there, nonetheless.
I have noticed a general conflation of these two ideas as various 
stakeholders try to wrap their heads around one, the other, or both.
I seek only to clarify here.


>
>>
>> For example, you are talking about using F-root, right?
>
> No. Nothing in the dns-isolated-networks talk about root servers.

Ahh.  Pardon me.  Earlier discussions (in other venues) which I remember 
(perhaps imperfectly) led me to that understanding at the time.  Plainly, 
there has been a change in that thinking reflected in your draft, or I 
misremember entirely.  Either way, I will review your draft in that light.
Sorry for any confusion.

>
>>  That is a very different thing than the functionality which I am describing, with significantly more network resource usage requirements.  My solution uses BP in some network segments.  Personally, I don't think your method will ever fly, primarily due to security reasons, but I don't troll your threads about it in a manner which would muddy the waters of those considering your proposal.  I don't mind healthy competition of ideas, but I do expect fair play.  If you wish to contrast the two methods, thats fine, yet unproductive, IMHO.  Just make sure the reader knows you are talking about your proposal, and not mine.
>
> You are reading more intention than reality. I’m just pointing out 
> documented solutions for DNS isolated networks solution (that has been 
> reviewed by few DNS friends-experts). It is not about « yours » or « 
> mine » solution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but deepspace IP and IP<-BP->IP are two entirely 
different concepts, generally thought-led by you and I, respectively. 
Sorry if you don't approve of my verbiage in describing that in the 
possessive, but that is just an artifact of English being my first 
language, I think.

> That is not how IETF works. The whole solution of deep 
> space IP is being discussed elsewhere and not going to discuss here.

Thank You,
ScottJ

>
> Respectfully, Marc.
>
>>
>> ScottJ
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is discussed in:
>>> - running IP in deep space (noBP<->IP): https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-deepspace-ip-asse
>>> ssment-01.txt
>>> - running DNS in remote places: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-dnsop-dns-isolated-network
>>> s-01.txt
>>> Regards, Marc.
>>> --
>>> Lorenzo Breda
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dtn mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]