Re: [dnsext] draft-diao-aip-dns

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Fri, 29 June 2012 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F2121F86F0; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1340984369; bh=GuTz1AC1iBF5pIR8zfymCz62NjdRWvVE64ILfAhqkyY=; h=Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Date:References:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=twuriEmIjm17PIkm/6BlTudUYe5t2k/qTSU6lOKgEKQkcCAuCsMVCUPm8cQ834W37 VrPCw+IS1OUNFWO4hsiGZpEyc227oWzWVTgvFmJa+/USjeECkE/X32MO8sKB/kJwO5 erAJfjExlpgb/QfEr+TG2q10uSg1gdQJxAdQ2XY4=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DA321F86F0 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5VUzX75qvaQ7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC25921F86DE for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4200CBC41C; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:39:26 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <D5132F15-4E2D-4B45-A5E3-7C7E2AFE368D@rfc1035.com>
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <21DEB429-D133-4C34-BFA8-F057E50977A8@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:39:26 +0100
References: <1340433313.43178.YahooMailClassic@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <B726DEA1-2E57-4E67-B481-5788CB26869E@vpnc.org> <CAMm+Lwh1J8+LB44X0XmUm+Fob1bSrdJLY76Vr8qsUx0yeDat+A@mail.gmail.com> <F17B354A-7D6D-4532-AA9B-8AB5D35A4BF8@rfc1035.com> <21DEB429-D133-4C34-BFA8-F057E50977A8@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-diao-aip-dns
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:18, Ralph Droms wrote:

> Can you be more specific - why is it not technically sound and  
> lacking in engineering merit?

Sure. The DNS uses hierarchical naming. Intrinsic to such a system is  
a unique root. It's the only way to ensure there's a universally  
consistent name space, something that's so self-evident it should not  
need further exposition. Any proposal for "multiple roots" by  
definition violate that fundamental principle. QED.

It is also unclear what requirements or operating conditions lie  
behind this draft. So unless the WG has a better understanding of the  
problem the draft intends to solve, it is not known from a technical  
or engineering perspective if the proposed approach satisfies the  
preconditions that motivated the production of this draft.

I suggest we ask the authors of this draft to come back when they have  
clarified the problem that apparently needs solving and they have  
devised a scheme which provides the innovation in the name space they  
appear to need and is consistent with RFC2826.



_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext