Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

[Tony Finch <[e-mail]>]

David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> "My point was exactly that the local stub resolver (that is, the library
> on the system that issues to name resolution requests, not the part of
> the name resolution system that does the work, be it DNS, mDNS, YP, or
> whatever) will be expected to distinguish between real DNS names and
> these pseudo-DNS names. This implies every time the IETF makes use of
> 6761, those tables of special labels is going to need to be updated (and
> I suspect the chances of this being done universally and consistently
> approach zero). This means an application that will work on one system
> (that has update the table) won't work on another (because the table
> hasn't been updated). I consider this sub-optimal."
>
> Haven't we been here before (e.g., .bitnet/.csnet/.uucp)?

To me this sounds a lot like private namespaces in the DNS which
correspond to private networks - the analogy being that these special
non-DNS names often correspond to special overlay networks (as in Tor and
GNUnet).

So you need to have the p2p software in order to use the overlay network
and to resolve the names. If your system doesn't know about the
specialness of the name then it won't resolve properly but you would not
be able to use it if it did resolve properly.

If an application needs the special connectivity, then it needs to require
the special support software.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[e-mail]>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor at first.