On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:37:36AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > DNS" that were completely different in their origin. Almsot none were > protocol-related, most were operational but some were not even linked > to DNS operations, they were layer 8 and 9 issues (such as the > registrar transfer problem in ICANNland) and completely offtopic for > the IETF. Well, to the extent that the real-world application of the protocol -- even several layers up -- turns out to be more difficult than simple reading of the protocol specification would suggest, we have a problem that is _not_ off-topic for the IETF. That problem is how to make this very flexible protocol safe for use in the network that actually exists. There is a tendency among those of us who are familiar with DNS to say, "Well, that's not what you're supposed to do," when we hear the horror stories people have about DNS problems. But if we really want people to use names instead of addresses all the time, then we need to ask ourselves why, in spite of the built-in resilience of DNS, relying on DNS often makes an application less resilient. If the explanation turns out to be exclusively things like the layer 8 and 9 issues you're talking about, then let's work on fixing them (or come up with a tech fix to route around that damage). I suspect, however, that we'll find ambiguities in the specifications that make certain kinds of implementations hard. We should fix that, too (and dnsext is trying). A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf