Re: [Inip-discuss] Domain Names

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

I haven't had any responses.  (I did have a call with one person.)  I had
some comments come in after contacting the IAB, one of the comments directed
me to inip-discuss.

I have it in mind to look at some updates to my document before the 25th of
this month - from that date I'll be off-line for a few weeks.

Not sure the status of the list or of any program.  I do plan to think about
this as other priorities allow me.

On 12/17/15, 16:04, "Warren Kumari" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ed, I was wondering if you got a reply to this, perhaps off list?
> 
> So far yours is the only message on the list (other than the "welcome") - it's
> still fairly unclear to me what the relationship is between this list and the
> IAB program (is this a write only list? What is it supposed to be commenting
> on / what output is there from the inip program (if any), what is the
> relationship between that and the design team? Etc)
> 
> W
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:43 AM Edward Lewis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> This message was originally sent to the iab mail list.  I'm repeating it
>> on this inip-discuss list to move the discussion to this themed list for
>> public discussion.
>> 
>> The original message:
>> 
>> As an outcome of work happening in the DNSOP WG, the work being the
>> addition of .ONION to the Special Use Domain Names registry and the group
>> looking to revamp the process for that registry, I researched the recorded
>> history of Domain Names and am working on a draft that can be found here:
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-domain-names-01
>> 
>> The draft isn't a completed work, its a start which I think needs
>> community review.  I'm looking to find the right place for it.  Despite
>> the seemingly natural fit to the DNSOP WG, I don't believe that is the
>> right fit.
>> 
>> I'm asking the IAB for it's opinion on whether this is a network
>> architectural issue or not.  I suppose the placement of the discussion
>> within the IETF is a matter for the IESG, so I'm not asking about that in
>> this message.  I only mention my qualms about DNSOP WG as a home as a
>> motivation to wonder if the problem is an architectural one or not.
>> 
>> What I've found, looking at the RFCs cited in the draft (as opposed to
>> IETF folklore, memories, mail lists), is that the idea of Domain Names
>> preceded the DNS.  There has never been a clear definition of Domain
>> Names, they have assumed the role of the basis for identifiers and are
>> used in many applications.  The DNS was built as an evolutionary
>> operational step, not as studied architecture for managing identifiers.
>> 
>> Is there a need to have an architectural understanding of how identifiers
>> are used across the internet's protocols?  The example of Tor's ONION
>> identifier (top-level name) pushes the point of how an identifier system
>> can follow the fuzzy definition of what a Domain Name is while yet
>> outright rejecting the management model of the DNS.  I'd once asked
>> (privately to a few, about 2 years ago) whether the DNS defines Domain
>> Names or do Domain Names define the DNS, in advance of this situation.  At
>> the time I don't think anyone understood my question.
>> 
>> I think, and I mean that as "think", there is a need to find a happy
>> medium where identifiers can be managed in different ways (DNS hierarchy
>> and zone admin vs. Tor's cryptographic basis) yet use similar syntax for
>> the purposes of sharing existing protocols (like HTTP) while using
>> different resolution processes.  The "victims" of not having a clear
>> direction are implementers of client applications that will have to juggle
>> different kinds of identifiers as well as those that implement lower (in
>> the software stack) layers that manage how an identifier is resolved.
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Inip-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip-discuss