Re: [Inip-discuss] Domain Names

[Lyman Chapin <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 13, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> Lyman,
> 
> On Jan 10, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Lyman Chapin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Is this a definition specific to the IN class domain name space?
>> 
>> Not at this level - RFC 1034 talks about "parallel" namespaces "[b]ecause we want the name space to be useful in dissimilar
>> networks and applications" but the definition of the domain name space as a labelled directed rooted tree applies to any class-tagged instantiation of it. It will quickly become specific to the IN class space when we get beyond the label and include the resource records that are also "stored" at each node -
> 
> One of the reasons I liked your definition is that it sounds like it was intended to be useful well beyond specific characteristics of DNS protocol.

It is! But several people have pointed out that although it may be useful, it isn't satisfying. In the math/graph realm we have the domain name space and we talk about trees, subtrees, and vertices. In the DNS realm we have zones, subzones, and zonefiles and we talk about delegation, name servers, and resource records (among other things). It's useful to discuss the name space separately from the resolution protocols, but from an engineering standpoint the usefulness level is much higher if we also know how specific systems (like the DNS) use the name space - the correspondence or mapping, if you will, between the math/graph realm and the DNS (as a system of protocols) realm.

- Lyman

> 
> I suspect Andrew's right that CLASS can't really be made to work in any case, but it seems to me it's worth continuing to explore how well the namespace can be discussed separately from assumptions about resolution protocols, data stored at the described nodes, etc.
> 
> 
> Suzanne
>