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

Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com> Wed, 24 July 2024 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@spacelypackets.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55384C14F616; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5qTLaqCND9N; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.spacelypackets.com (www.spacelypackets.com [IPv6:2602:fdf2:bee:feed::ee]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0323CC14F60A; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scott (helo=localhost) by www.spacelypackets.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <scott@spacelypackets.com>) id 1sWipq-0006vu-0m; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:43:42 +0000
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:43:42 +0000
From: Scott Johnson <scott@spacelypackets.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <41A7771E-8D08-4272-B457-F9FE61CD77A3@viagenie.ca>
Message-ID: <358b7baa-d4f1-5f73-152b-768806efa0f3@spacelypackets.com>
References: <65daf988-f696-4f35-5a72-5b11ef4893b8@spacelypackets.com> <CAEhHO_MaUFraCuur2uYEBrRcdKUty3ZwoPsFeP3V1iXf5vQxxA@mail.gmail.com> <b098f7cb-e42b-c7e4-56b8-dcb9125c17e9@spacelypackets.com> <CAEhHO_P4VmCC0VfxHRPdnvUzzwamMThbcuQAp1N98yWTCd-Bsg@mail.gmail.com> <0685c4ca-0b10-d7a8-ccd4-507dc6755d1a@spacelypackets.com> <CAEhHO_PbrkKqaJsBD+Fih+i1rY5YN+9=Y-fNUpOp2PfXL+hAuA@mail.gmail.com> <41A7771E-8D08-4272-B457-F9FE61CD77A3@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-2112415152-523226855-1721853822=:31297"
Message-ID-Hash: 6BDGEXRKA6HEHZKJO4HXYE2YOFM4RAN6
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6BDGEXRKA6HEHZKJO4HXYE2YOFM4RAN6
X-MailFrom: scott@spacelypackets.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Lorenzo Breda <lorenzo@lbreda.com>, DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [dtn] An Interplanetary DNS Model
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nJcXaVpjVyrD82iLUi4cohhshBY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Marc,

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> 
>
>       Le 24 juill. 2024 à 11:42, Lorenzo Breda
>       <lorenzo@lbreda.com> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 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.  Your comment on this 
thread, without context, only serves to confuse the other participants.

For example, you are talking about using F-root, right?  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.

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 -- dtn@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to dtn-leave@ietf.org
> 
> 
> 
>