Le jeudi 14 juin 2007 à 09:58 +0200, Emmanuel Lecharny a écrit : > > My opinion was very related to DNS. IMHO DNS is different from FPT, HTTP > > and SMTP because HTTP, FTP, SMTP clients (not protocol) will rely on DNS > > for hostname resolution and not viceversa. > > I don't really think that make any difference. A protocol is a > protocol, whatever it depends on. The fact that you need a DNS > resolution when sending an Http request does not make DNS a > 'different' protocol. Anyway, this is just a question of perception > ... > > > > If a developer builds its own protocol to be used on internet, well, it > > is very likely to need DNS somewhere. > > > > That's why I think that DNS belongs to MINA TLP. > > I don't see any connection between the fact that DNS is used by any > other services and the idea that DNS protocol should belongs to MINA > TLP...
Well if a convenient async DNS client can be made, it surely could be shiped with MINA, but a full blown bind replacement is another story. > > I don't want to start a never ending discussion on this, so consider > that the fact we don't agree does not mean I'm right :) > Specialy french who allways like too disagree :) I'm for waiting to see emerging code first, and discuss later. I'm actualy unable to manage to resolve a simple IN ADDR record with modified ADS DNS server, so I'm far of any usable server. Julien
