> Le 9 oct. 2023 à 20:34, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> a écrit :
>
> On Oct 9, 2023, at 10:02, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40meta....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is fun to think about, but it seems to me that these networks should
>> avoid any reliance on the ICANN DNS tree. I doubt that any network of space
>> probes on Io can accept the risk of a technical or governance issue on .io.
>>
>> Regardless, I think the draft would more helpful if drawn from real-world(s)
>> systems, rather than speculating about architectures that might apply in
>> some distant hypothetical scenario.
As stated in previous email, references about IP usage in deep space are in the
other draft referenced in this draft. But I guess I need to give it here. See
IAOG paper for Moon and Mars:
[ioag] Lunar Communications Architecture Working Group,
Interagency Operations Advisory Group, "The Future Lunar
Communications Architecture, Report of the Interagency
Operations Advisory Group", January 2022,
<https://www.ioag.org/Public%20Documents/Lunar%20communica
tions%20architecture%20study%20report%20FINAL%20v1.3.pdf>.
Blanchet, et al. Expires 11 March 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IP in Deep Space September 2023
[ioag-mars]
Mars and Beyond Communications Architecture Working Group,
Interagency Operations Advisory Group, "The Future Mars
Communications Architecture, Report of the Interagency
Operations Advisory Group", February 2022,
<https://www.ioag.org/Public%20Documents/
MBC%20architecture%20report%20final%20version%20PDF.pdf>.
>
> I agree. UUCP seems a better fit here, with DNS resolving happening on the
> earthly receiver side 😀
>
> Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
