Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:26:54PM -0500,
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
If by "hostname" the authors mean DNS names,
I would personally make a difference between the concept of a domain
name and the protocol used to resolve them (today, mostly DNS).
Yup.
The domain names will probably stay for a very long time, now that
people are used to it. The DNS may be replaced or partially replaced
in the future by new protocols (such as P2P ones).
So, I believe that the term of "DNS name" is confusing.
DNS is too slow and too often incorrect.
See the remark above. If we replace DNS with a "better" protocol,
would your objection still stand?
This question presumes that problems with performance and reliability are due to
the protocol, rather than its implementation and/or operation.
And while it's true that IP addresses don't have the right
semantics, neither do DNS names.
Please elaborate. I agree that the current resolution protocol is not
perfect but what is wrong with the semantics of domain names?
Where is the alternative specification to compare against? Where are the
details for implementing, deploying and using, to compare against?
It's always appealing and trivially easy to take an existing infrastructure and
find fault with it when comparing to something no more concrete than an idea.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf