IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Mon, 02 December 2013 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D13F1AD9A9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7MvW1jIfkWx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C811ADBCB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vpn-client-208.netnod.se (vpn-client-208.netnod.se [192.71.80.208]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC6D320039; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:14:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6903C651-ABDB-480D-982B-46C179B89229"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <C3D18266-AAB2-422C-8617-5CF0871ECC9F@ogud.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:14:49 +0100
Message-Id: <0FB5646A-E045-4445-8F62-C11FAD7E90C4@frobbit.se>
References: <20131201164841.GB12135@sources.org> <C3D18266-AAB2-422C-8617-5CF0871ECC9F@ogud.com>
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:14:58 -0000

On 2 dec 2013, at 16:40, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote:

> I have a big conceptual problem with it, 
> Why do people think that different namespaces should be identified by a postfix? 

The people that use browsers...that "just" type in something that looks like, smells like, and acts like a domain name... :-P

Although DNS protocol is not in use for the name resolution, but HTTP is used for the actual protocol to fetch whatever data is to be fetched.

> In DNS wire protocol we have classes, to me that seems like much better way of handling this. 
> I even will question why are the not using  something more expressive like 
> 	GNU#&#<domain_name> 
> 
> #@# is in this case a random string to separate namespaces 
> 
> I'm not sure the same resolution library should be used for different namespaces that are distributed hash tables. 

Agree, but...

> TLD live on the boundary of IETF and ICANN, we do not want to push that boundary but allowing RFC to allocate what ICANN charges big bucks for.

Correct, and that is why I think:

1. It is important to have this discussion

2. We should have different proposals for .bit (and similar) and other hash tables

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email