Paul Vixie wrote: >if the names are global then they will be unique and DNS itself will handle >the decision of how to route questions to the right authority servers. >... >first i hope you can explain why the simpler and existing viral DNS paradigm >(all names are global and unique) is unacceptable for your purpose.
I wanted to highlight the central point Paul Vixie made and note that it applies even when an organization does not make all its namespace globally resolvable. An organization's globally unique DNS can include subdomains that cannot be resolved at all outside certain restricted paths, zones that resolve differently based on the origin of the query and zones that resolve the same globally for all queries from any source. Globally unique names do not equate to globally resolvable names or even global names that resolve the same way from every perspective. Globally unique names do prevent any possibility of collision at the present or in the future and they make DNSSEC trust manageable. (Both of those are significant concerns for my organization.) It's not as if there is or even could be some sort of shortage in available names that can be used, especially subdomains and the ability to delegate administrative boundaries are considered. I would also like to understand why global and unique names are unacceptable. Thanks, Scott _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
