I am top-quoting a bit to introduce. I started a new thread and severed
the references/in-reply-to chain from my message about /.well-known.
Keith makes what I first felt was a very controversial and unsupportable
claim about DNS vs services. DNS has been widely successful at the Internet
scale. On the other hand, I happened to be in the offices of a ccTLD
this week doing some non-DNS work. I happened to be within earshot of
a support person answering the same question about why the ccTLD couldn't fix
the caller's web site/domain... So maybe it's not so succesful if the
complex web-server/DNS-server/registrar/ccTLD relationship is still opaque
to so many.
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The last thing we need is even more use of DNS[*] to locate
> services. DNS is too often out of sync with reality as it is. A really
> unfortunate consequence of using DNS for service discovery results from
> a tendency to centralize DNS administration within an organization,
> even if (as is often the case) hosts and applications are administered
> in a distributed fashion. In any organization large enough to have an
> administrative hierarchy, this is a profoundly dysfunctional
> arrangement. It gives the central DNS administration a huge amount of
> ability to break things (whether due to incompetence, poor
> communication, or petty turf wars - usually some of all of these),
> whereas the very nature of such an organization makes it almost
> impossible for them to get things right. Using DNS for SD in a
> widespread fashion only exacerbates the problem.
It seems that you are arguing for a technology fix to a management problem.
(the "why we can't have nice things" lament comes to mind)
I'm not saying any of your reasons are wrong! I have observed some of all of
what you point to. It seems therefore that any proposed technological fix
needs to do a clear analysis of the management issues around IT
(not just specifically around DNS).
I know that the initial DNS-SD effort was thought to be going to be just mDNS
with proxies at the gateways. We didn't go there: are you thinking about
something like that?
> Part of the problem is the too-common notion that there are "public"
> names and "local" names, meaning that the DNS name space is polluted
> with names
> that aren't in the hierarchy. A separate, though related, problem is that
> there's no architected way to distinguish one from the other.
> [*] By "DNS" here I mean the naming hierarchy, which is of course
> related to the data model.
I agree with your description above.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
