Hi Marc,
Why are you against leaving the current TLDs implicitly on Earth
by default?
Right. One do not need a special TLD for space. We can use what we have and it
just works fine.
I do not disagree with this notion as respects my proposed
architecture. 3rd level domains mapped to off-world domains works just
fine, for the low low price of annual domain renewal. a tld
representing each remote world is preferable, however, because it is
just "cooler;" easier to use and more memorable than a much longer
domain. This, however, assumes we are talking about the same proposal,
which we are not.
One has just to be careful on remote resolution so that it contains what is
needed: trust chain, local names, ...
Lets be clear here, Marc. You are talking about a completely different
solution than I am; one predicated on IP only.
But the remote resolution is relevant to any DNS infra in mostly
isolated networks. Hence my comment and reference to the draft, as
information on how to do that.
Fair enough.
Your comment on this thread, without context, only serves to confuse
the other participants.
Sorry. Not the intent. Not the reality.
I will grant not the intent, but the effect is there, nonetheless.
I have noticed a general conflation of these two ideas as various
stakeholders try to wrap their heads around one, the other, or both.
I seek only to clarify here.
For example, you are talking about using F-root, right?
No. Nothing in the dns-isolated-networks talk about root servers.
Ahh. Pardon me. Earlier discussions (in other venues) which I remember
(perhaps imperfectly) led me to that understanding at the time. Plainly,
there has been a change in that thinking reflected in your draft, or I
misremember entirely. Either way, I will review your draft in that light.
Sorry for any confusion.
That is a very different thing than the functionality which I am describing,
with significantly more network resource usage requirements. My solution uses
BP in some network segments. Personally, I don't think your method will ever
fly, primarily due to security reasons, but I don't troll your threads about it
in a manner which would muddy the waters of those considering your proposal. I
don't mind healthy competition of ideas, but I do expect fair play. If you
wish to contrast the two methods, thats fine, yet unproductive, IMHO. Just
make sure the reader knows you are talking about your proposal, and not mine.
You are reading more intention than reality. I’m just pointing out
documented solutions for DNS isolated networks solution (that has been
reviewed by few DNS friends-experts). It is not about « yours » or «
mine » solution.
Correct me if I am wrong, but deepspace IP and IP<-BP->IP are two entirely
different concepts, generally thought-led by you and I, respectively.
Sorry if you don't approve of my verbiage in describing that in the
possessive, but that is just an artifact of English being my first
language, I think.
That is not how IETF works. The whole solution of deep
space IP is being discussed elsewhere and not going to discuss here.
Thank You,
ScottJ
Respectfully, Marc.
ScottJ
This is discussed in:
- running IP in deep space (noBP<->IP):
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-deepspace-ip-asse
ssment-01.txt
- running DNS in remote places:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-dnsop-dns-isolated-network
s-01.txt
Regards, Marc.
--
Lorenzo Breda
_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
