Keith, KM> DNS names are not sufficient for rendezvous or referral.
Here are the arguments about the names, themselves, that you put forward: KM> * Incompatible with existing transport protocols. If you mean that they are too long to be carried in IP packet headers, you are of course correct. If you mean something else, please explain. However, your concern presupposes that the identifiers must be carried in those protocol -- or rather, that they must be carried in them frequently. KM> * Ambiguous and overloaded. Quite often, a DNS name doesn't refer to a host. So? What problem does that cause? Specifically, please provide a usage example that would cause a problem. KM> Instead it refers to a service (as in imap.example.com or www.example.com) KM> which might map to numerous hosts. And it might not. So? Again, please provide a usage scenario that is problematic. KM> There can also be many domains KM> associated with a single host and yet be semantically different; How is this a problem? KM> What this means among other things is that existing domain names that we KM> use cannot be expected to be host identifiers. It depends upon how they are used. KM> Even when they are KM> sufficient to identify a host for initial connection purposes, resolving KM> the same DNS name again may not produce a locator for the same host as KM> before. You are assuming all sorts of semantics to the use of a DNS string that might or might not be true, for any specific proposal to use domain names. KM> * Not organized favorably. Existing DNS names are organized according to a KM> hierarchy of administrative entities, This is a strength, not a weakness. If the requirement is for a globally-registered and unique string, there is not other administrative model for which we have global experience. Feel free to cite a counter-example. KM> and write access to DNS RRs is also KM> organized in this fashion. Whether frequently written RRs is required is, again, dependent upon what proposal is made. KM> The components of domain names are usually KM> intended to be recognizable by humans, and humans therefore attach meaning KM> to those names. This is a feature that serves to improve the mnemonic potential of the strings. So? KM> This further implies that those administrative entities KM> often want to restrict use of their domains, so that their names aren't KM> associated with behavior that they cannot control. I cannot even guess what you mean by the above. KM> Of course, it would still be possible to create a new tree of domain names KM> that did not have these characteristics, but this would remove what many KM> see as the primary advantage of using DNS names - the ability to avoid KM> creating new infrastructure. depends upon the nature of the new registration policies. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
