Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Is it not the case that if you distribute an unique namespace (rather than use a tree for DNS) you will end up swapping a root based DNS architecture for some form of PKI to authenticate the distributed namespace as meeting policy and that this also needs a structure to guarantee authenticity and to achieve this universally we would end up with some similar looking policy control issues to determine how to manage the infrastructure so that it is safe?
Of course having decided on the operational policy parameters it  
would be useful to be able to automate the operations. But surely the  
same could apply to IANA functions? It's the policy that is tough and  
takes thought.
Incidentally I agree that there is need of identifiers that users can  
deploy that goes into the data infrastructure rather than simply the  
underlying device (or pseudo device) infrastructure addressed by DNS.  
But generally ideas along these lines that I've seen tend to  
piggyback with or around the DNS rather than replace it. -

Christian de Larrinaga
cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 30 Sep 2005, at 22:15, Michael Mealling wrote:

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:


In message <433DA1BD.1060707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Mealling writes:

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

Reexamine the premises....


I am -- these are my premises.  I lived far too long in the uucp  
world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble.

Again you're talking about mail routing and addressing mechanisms  
when the people that use DNS in their web browser are looking for a  
smart search interface that understands better what they're after  
and why. Why do those two applications have to use the same  
addressing scheme? Many of the political problems with DNS have  
nothing to do with routing email and have everything to do with the  
fact that its what your grandmother is using as an interface.

Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living.
Sure.... security requires a level of exactness that you shouldn't  
burden the user with or else he won't use the system....

I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees.

And what I'm suggesting is that uniqueness is a requirement of  
networks and system, not people. The issues the UN has with the way  
DNS is run have to do with the fact that you're trying to apply a  
requirement of the network to society and that creates problems.  
IMHO, we should look at building a system that works the way people  
use identifiers and identity and then get that to work with the  
existing network we have.
-MM

--
Michael Mealling                  Masten Space Systems, Inc.
VP Business Development                       473 Sapena Ct.
Office: +1-678-581-9656                            Suite 23
Cell: +1-678-640-6884                 Santa Clara, CA 95054
                http://masten-space.com/



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]