Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:13 +0200, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>  
wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Is there a particular reason that DNS is a better mechanism than HTTP,
>> in your view? Or is that an implementation detail?
>
> The DNS occurred to me because it's already used for carrying domain  
> names, and also because I've been doing DNS for a long time, so it's a  
> comfortable tool for me.
>
> HTTP would work as long as the queries were for specific domain names.    
> However, you would miss taking advantage of all the work DNS server  
> implementors have done to make DNS lookups really fast.
>
> Also, I suspect the overhead of an HTTP request is substantially higher  
> than the overhead of a DNS request when you think about all the groovy  
> headers that normally get stuffed into HTTP, particularly if you want to  
> use SSL.   With DNSSEC, the DNSSEC server signs a zone once and then  
> just answers you with the signed data when you ask for it.  Whereas with  
> HTTPS the HTTP server has to re-sign the data for every query.

The way I envision a dynamically updated system for this (see my draft),  
the information would be grouped for each TLD in a single file that the  
client downloads every 30 days when needed. That means that the overhead  
is kept to a minimum.

Where the information in the file(s) comes from is a separate topic. It  
can be a database maintained somewhere, or it could be DNS (but in that  
case it would have to be traversable).

-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer		                 Email: yngve@opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop