Re: [Inip-discuss] Domain Names

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Lyman Chapin wrote:
>
> Hmm… but I thought we were discussing the syntax of the name-space. It
> seems that we then arrive at 3 things that all hook together: syntax,
> namespace, and resolution protocol.
>
>
> A domain name that identifies a point within the domain name space has a
> syntax, but the name space itself does not. Syntax is a set of rules that
> govern the structure of (in this case) domain names - the composition of
> labels, and how they may be ordered. The domain name space is just a
> labelled directed rooted tree, a math/graph construct that doesn't have (or
> need) a syntax. (I apologize for the way in which this sounds "preachy" -
> I'm just trying to be as precise as possible in the way in which these
> terms are used.)
>
>
>
> The Internet DNS namespace is specifically defined through the resolution
> system starting at the IANA root. To first approximation it is the hints
> file used at the resolver that defines the name-space.
>
>
> The domain name space is explicitly (going back to RFC 1034) not defined
> by the DNS resolution system. If it's useful to do so, we can define the
> "Internet DNS namespace" to be the domain name space overlaid with the
> semantics expected by the resolution system (servers and resolvers). But
> that would assume an answer to at least one of the questions we're still
> discussing: "if it is resolved by something other than the DNS, is it a
> domain name?"
>
> Aha…
>
> I conceptually I always thought there are multiple domain name spaces
> where each names space is internally consistent (In the context of
> alternate roots: different root-hints implies different namespace). So for
> me name-spaces are plural. When you talk about the domain namespace I note
> you talk about as singular.
>
> In your definition you say "The domain name space constitutes a labelled
> directed rooted tree" I guess the specifics of that root are important. I
> tend to think of my.server.in.my.home as being part of a different
> name-space as the isoc.org in my email address.
> Both seem to be captured under your definition. Correct?
>
> So perhaps as a question: Does your definition allow for multiple
> namespaces, do we want a definition to allow for multiple namespaces.
>

... and I have a larger / meta question.
Much of this discussion seems to have turned into deep navel gazing.

Let's pretend for a bit that we come up with a perfect definition of
"namespace" and "domain namespace". It's clean, it's pretty, it's
understandable by the average monkey....
Great. Now what?

Does this somehow help solve the underlying issues? Do we have a clear
description of what the underlying issues actually *are*? Who uses this
definition? Where? How?

Yes, having a definition so that we all know what we are talking about is
useful; it's like having a good tool in our toolbox, but what are we
actually going to build with this tool? Who has the plans?

W



—Olaf
>
> ------------------------------
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> Chief Internet Technology Officer Internet Society
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/>
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> LinkedIn:OlafKolkman <https://nl.linkedin.com/in/olafkolkman>
> Twitter: @Kolkman <https://twitter.com/kolkman>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Inip-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip-discuss
>