Michael.Dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
That's why it seems quite reasonable to continue
work on the protocol as a more general distributed
database service. But not on port 53 which is
mission critical for the ONE NETWORK which
rules them all.
The essential argument that you are making, I think, is about the DNS
*operational* service, rather than about the DNS protocol. Hence the call for
using a different port for additional uses. (cf., SMTP and SUBMISSION, of course.)
Yet responses so far are about the protocol, or maybe about protocol "support".
The observation that the vast bulk of current DNS use is for a particular
function that is essential to real-world use of the basic infrastructure ought
to be obviously true to folks.
So the question is whether adding other uses of it might pose any significant
problems. This is not a protocol question, but an ops, admin, and management
question.
Will the different uses create traffic patterns, administrative requirements, or
the like, that threaten the current, essential service, in any of the ways
previously cited?
A small example: The current DNS is typically administered by a particular kind
of group within an organization's IT structure. Do the proposed new uses pose
any problems for this, by virtue of needing a possibly different set of
administrators? (It turns out that the controversial underscore naming
technique provides a way of vectoring some new uses to new administrative groups.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf