--On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 20:20 +0100 Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7 jan 2014, at 19:48, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> So any talk about having a different/better naming scheme is >> really just wishful thinking and a mostly a waste of >> everybody's time. If there was a better system, some set of >> smart folk would surely have already clued the rest of us in >> on what that was. Anyone remember Tim Bass? > > On top of that (if you look at some arguments that "change is > needed") I would like to know what the problem really is. And > yes, I am happy(?) to, and have tried to, understand what the > problem is. > > As others have explained, often "the problem" has to do with > misunderstanding of how Internet and DNS works. In other cases > it has to do with real issues, like the actual decision making > process for what strings can exist. > > When knowing what the problem is, there is often not much > disagreement on the fact improvements can be made. But more > disagreements in what the best path forward is. But THAT > discussion is much more fruitful and effective than just > saying "things must change". While agreeing with this and with most of Thomas's and Andrew's comments, I think there are a few substantive problems that can be easily identified and that keep coming back (I do not consider arguments about who controls the root of a strict hierarchy to be substantive, no matter how entertaining they become). Most of them are associated with expectations of the DNS that it, as a strictly hierarchical system with one name per node, one-way links, and fairly weak aliases, cannot satisfy. For example, we see repeated requests (or "requirements", demands, or fantasies) about treating two (or more) names as so identical that retrievals or actions that affect one of them affect the others. It is certainly within the state of the art to do that in a strictly hierarchical system. Hierarchical database and file systems with support for those relationships have been around for close to 50 years if not longer. But it isn't a modification that can be patched into the DNS -- it just isn't going to happen without replacing the DNS. Some of the people who make those requests can be educated; others prefer to believe that, if only they repeat their demands often enough and loudly enough, they will get their way. Similarly, we see repeated requests (etc.) for search and matching systems that are context-dependent based on either locations in the hierarchy or hints/ specifications stored in the hierarchy itself. Again, it is possible to design a hierarchical system to do that but almost certainly not possible to retrofit it into the current DNS. There are other examples, typically involving other types of search and matching procedures, that can't be done in the DNS because they are incompatible with a strict hierarchy. Using them would either require replacing the DNS with something entirely different (and probably less suitable for unique identifiers of network objects) or layering a separate system on top of the DNS (depending on one's perspective, it could be argued that contemporary search engines serve that role and the problem is solved). I suggest that the things that these examples and others have in common are: (i) They cannot be realized within the DNS as we know it, even if some hypothetical replacement system could accommodate some or all of them. (ii) Under the best of circumstances, deploying a replacement system would be a long, slow, and painful process. Independent of the difficulty of deploying such a system (including thinking through transition issues), it is almost certain that taking advantage of the requested features of a new system would require different parameters in the query/lookup process and that would, in turn, require updating every application on the Internet. (iii) The people advocating the changes implied by those examples are either ignorant of the reasons for (i) and (ii) or aren't willing to admit to and deal with those reasons. (iv) When we have tried to stimulate interest in the community about various solutions and approaches, including the "above DNS" ones that are, IMO, the most plausible from a deployment and adoption standpoint, we generally discover that there isn't any such interest, especially once people understand what would actually be involved. best, john