Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
--On måndag, måndag 3 dec 2007 12.57.56 -0800 Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mohsen Souissi wrote: >> I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his >> arguments below. >> >> > +1. > Brian ++; /Måns -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 cell KTHNOC +46 8 790 6518 office MN1334-RIPE does your DRESSING ROOM have enough ASPARAGUS? pgpE3p8zdEt9c.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:39:33AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > 2^128 addresses may be not used all. But I am doubtful of " A more > realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * earth's population. " . > There are many public equipments with IP addresses in the future, may be in > the street, or any public spaces. > However, this is not problem. If domain names is just combinations of > characters, the domain names may never exhausted forever. My argue is > "giving a new registered domain name some social meaning known by lots of > other people other than just by the owner himself would be better, because > domain name needs some additional value for the corresponding IP address". > and just HOW are "lots of other people" going to aquire "some social meaning"? by looking for the registry named "us8rjdfspiiqqbgztr3f" and then finding a link that maps "xn-feedG.cog.xn-B04s.la.ca.us." to a site that has the best licorice recipies in the known solar system? or are you going to outlaw strings that have no meaning for you and some arbitary group of "other people"? a domain name has no -NEED- to have any additional value beyond a unique mapping to one or more IP addresses. --bill > > > Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The basic premise that name use is tied to potential addresses > is false. > > Also that fact that the address space is 2^128 in IPv6 in > no way means that we will get 2^128 addresses assigned on > the net. > > A more realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * > earth's population. Even that is a guess, but it will > only be a relatively small multiplier. The number however > is larger than 4 billion which ment that we needed a bigger > address scheme that we have with IPv4. > > The DNS will handle whatever naming requirements humans > need for the forseeable future. We really don't name things > fast enough for it to be a problem. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail. > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
Lican Huang wrote: 2^128 addresses may be not used all. But I am doubtful of " A more realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * earth's population. " . There are many public equipments with IP addresses in the future, may be in the street, or any public spaces. However, this is not problem. If domain names is just combinations of characters, the domain names may never exhausted forever. My argue is "giving a new registered domain name some social meaning known by lots of other people other than just by the owner himself would be better, because domain name needs some additional value for the corresponding IP address". You are overlooking one important fact: The domain name system is hierarchical, with for all practical terms, no hard limit on the depth of the tree. Your argument seems to be constructed on the incorrect assumption of a flat namespace. For example, there exists today, instances of geographic naming schemes in some geographic areas, such as: .ca (canada) .on.ca (ontario) .on.ca And for each of these, it is possible to get a domain name of appropriate scope. This way large companies get .ca, while small local businesses get per-city names. This is also done under the ".gov" domain. This ability is limited only by the willingness of local communities to build similar trees in their portion of the domain space, and to administer the tree through whatever means they choose. So, the problem you are trying to describe, has already been solved, and indeed was solved by the first RFC for DNS. Brian Dickson ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
2^128 addresses may be not used all. But I am doubtful of " A more realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * earth's population. " . There are many public equipments with IP addresses in the future, may be in the street, or any public spaces. However, this is not problem. If domain names is just combinations of characters, the domain names may never exhausted forever. My argue is "giving a new registered domain name some social meaning known by lots of other people other than just by the owner himself would be better, because domain name needs some additional value for the corresponding IP address". Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The basic premise that name use is tied to potential addresses is false. Also that fact that the address space is 2^128 in IPv6 in no way means that we will get 2^128 addresses assigned on the net. A more realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * earth's population. Even that is a guess, but it will only be a relatively small multiplier. The number however is larger than 4 billion which ment that we needed a bigger address scheme that we have with IPv4. The DNS will handle whatever naming requirements humans need for the forseeable future. We really don't name things fast enough for it to be a problem. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:22:04PM +, Lican Huang wrote: > My draft is about to handle possible problems when huge amount of domain > names when Internet is in Ipv6 stage. Because of unlimited amount of Ipv6 > addresses, unlimited amount of hosts ( servers, PC, even mobile phones, etc > ) will have static Ip addresses in the Internet. So, these hosts may > require domain names if we use Domain Name Systems as the way today. not unlimited. there is an upper bound to the number of IP addresses as well as an upper bound on the number of domain names. these bounds are mathmatically fixed. and potentially, yes. each IP address might have a unique DNS domain name attached. Or there may be more than one name attached to an IP address. Or there may be many IP addresses attached to one DNS domain name. > >One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount domain names. > I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle successively with > huge amount domain names in the future. That is why I wrote a > distributed-dns-implementation draft to try to solve this problem. Your thinking here seems to be flawed. Why do you think the DNS can not handle the potentially large numbers of new domain names which might be registered? Please show the math. > Another question is when there are so huge amount domain names in the > future, why we don't give these domain names semantic meaning?Can you > figure out what's the meaning about "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com " from bilions > of domain names? You may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get > the link of www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are > useless , because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to > represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. You may say we use domain names as stable > name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use these ugly domain > names? Why not semantic domain names? dealing with larger numbers of names is a different question than the one of semantic meaning. your concerns about semantic meaning are understandable, but flawed. the flaws are along two axis... a) that the lable www.example.com MEANS there is an HTTP server. there is no such requirement or even implied assumption that it is the case. you ask the question; "what's the meaning i about "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com " from bilions of domain names?" to which I reply - the meaning is that is the site where I can download my favorite licorice recipies. It means something to ME. Just because it is not apparent to you, does not divorce it from meaning to others. this leads to the second (and perhaps fatal) flaw; b) that you seem to assume ASCII encoded labels. In todays DNS, there are many places that do not use ASCII encoding. DNS lables take the form xn-?.xn-.xn-???. which in and of themselves have no semantic meaning whatsoever. The beauty of the encoding is that when the DNS lable is handed to an application, it is able to decode the lable into a script that is understandable to the target user... so folks who only read Mandarin can actually have DNS lables encoded so that they are parsed/displayed as Mandarin. And the same can be done for Hindi, Farsi, Korean, and even English. >How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual > organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN controls top > level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled by virtual > organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to the clasification of > contents. In this way, we can figure out hieararchical classification of > contents very easily by trace down the heararchical domain names. > If domain names are named as this way , we can easily add SEARCH power in > DNS just like my draft. Perhaps that could be made to work. I remain dubious of the value, particularly in light of alternate encoding methods and the ambiguity on the semantic equivalence of various strings encoded differently. You have not persuaded me of the value of proceding down this development path. >Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain names in > the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic domain names, and > let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today. Show me where/how you will get enough traction to get this started and what real problems it solves for people that are not already solved in other ways. > > Lican > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:10:52AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > > If SE
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
The basic premise that name use is tied to potential addresses is false. Also that fact that the address space is 2^128 in IPv6 in no way means that we will get 2^128 addresses assigned on the net. A more realistic estimate of address usage would be 100 * earth's population. Even that is a guess, but it will only be a relatively small multiplier. The number however is larger than 4 billion which ment that we needed a bigger address scheme that we have with IPv4. The DNS will handle whatever naming requirements humans need for the forseeable future. We really don't name things fast enough for it to be a problem. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
Lican Huang (huang_lican) writes: > >One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount >domain names. Define huge -- it's already pretty huge today. >I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle >successively with huge amount domain names in the future. Why ? > Another question is when there are so huge amount domain >names in the future, why we don't give these domain names >semantic meaning? Can you figure out what's the meaning about >"www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com " from bilions of domain names? DNS is a labelling mechanism, as has been pointed out before. I don't think people care about assigning meaning to "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com". >You >may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get the link of >www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are useless >, because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to >represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. And we don't because the idea was to have a labelling mechanism that was distinct from the addressing mechanisme. Nothing more. > You may say we use domain names >as stable name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use >these ugly domain names? Why not semantic domain names? Because it's not DNS anymore ? >How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual >organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN >controls top level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled >by virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to >the clasification of contents. In this way, we can figure out >hieararchical classification of contents very easily by trace down >the heararchical domain names. But it's not the same protocol and architecture is it ? >Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain >names in the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic >domain names, and let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today. The second part may be interesting, but I still fail to see how the existing DNS architecture will not be adequate for IPv6. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
My draft is about to handle possible problems when huge amount of domain names when Internet is in Ipv6 stage. Because of unlimited amount of Ipv6 addresses, unlimited amount of hosts ( servers, PC, even mobile phones, etc ) will have static Ip addresses in the Internet. So, these hosts may require domain names if we use Domain Name Systems as the way today. One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount domain names. I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle successively with huge amount domain names in the future. That is why I wrote a distributed-dns-implementation draft to try to solve this problem. Another question is when there are so huge amount domain names in the future, why we don't give these domain names semantic meaning?Can you figure out what's the meaning about "www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com " from bilions of domain names? You may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get the link of www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are useless , because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. You may say we use domain names as stable name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use these ugly domain names? Why not semantic domain names? How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN controls top level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled by virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to the clasification of contents. In this way, we can figure out hieararchical classification of contents very easily by trace down the heararchical domain names. If domain names are named as this way , we can easily add SEARCH power in DNS just like my draft. Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain names in the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic domain names, and let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today. Lican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:10:52AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And all > DNS registrar companies would broken out. perhaps you are right. at this point we don't have enough data. > What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com > if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the > micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if > microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then what > useful this kind of DNS would exist? at what poiint in time did the string "microsoft" gain any sort of human memorable meaning? what would have been the result if Bill Gates named his new company "jksdfjsdfdfsdf"? 25 years later, it would be a globally recognizable mark and you would be arguing over other strings. > > My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some > reform. you are entitled to your opinion. others are entitled to thier opinions as well. you seem to have failed, this time, to persuade people that adding search to the DNS is a wise & prudent thing for the evolution of the protocol. im my own case, having implemented rudimentary search in the DNS - i can't recommend it for anyting other than as an interesting academic exercise. the pieces you have written drafts about fail to include a key, critical component of a DNS with Search capability. Still, an interesting stab at a perceived problem. It might make more sense if you actually had all the required peices documented. --bill > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > > When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next > > generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted > > soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other > > disadvantage in the today's DNS. > > Please see the section of "What's broken?" in the article of Lenny Foner in > > http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. > > Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely > orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all > the "good" names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was > first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, > we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. > With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the > mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near > DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, > I'd love to see the studies. > > > > > Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, > > otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In > > other words
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:10:52AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And > all DNS registrar companies would broken out. perhaps you are right. at this point we don't have enough data. > What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com > if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the > micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if > microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then > what useful this kind of DNS would exist? at what poiint in time did the string "microsoft" gain any sort of human memorable meaning? what would have been the result if Bill Gates named his new company "jksdfjsdfdfsdf"? 25 years later, it would be a globally recognizable mark and you would be arguing over other strings. > > My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some > reform. you are entitled to your opinion. others are entitled to thier opinions as well. you seem to have failed, this time, to persuade people that adding search to the DNS is a wise & prudent thing for the evolution of the protocol. im my own case, having implemented rudimentary search in the DNS - i can't recommend it for anyting other than as an interesting academic exercise. the pieces you have written drafts about fail to include a key, critical component of a DNS with Search capability. Still, an interesting stab at a perceived problem. It might make more sense if you actually had all the required peices documented. --bill > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > > When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next > > generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted > > soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other > > disadvantage in the today's DNS. > > Please see the section of "What's broken?" in the article of Lenny Foner in > > http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. > > Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely > orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all > the "good" names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was > first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, > we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. > With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the > mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near > DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, > I'd love to see the studies. > > > > > Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, > > otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In > > other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system > > can be throwed away. > > > > The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due > > to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new > > domains. > > Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? > > DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. > In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for > use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. > Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures > of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is > in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The > Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to > addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the > name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the > "DNS system can be thowed away" is vacuously true. If you find it > non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people > use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other > tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. > It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. > > > > > This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS > > using classified hierarchical Domain Names. > > > > I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually > built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression > expansion of the "?" and "*" characters...) > > Your milage will vary. > > --bill > > > > Mohsen Souissi wrote: > > I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his > > arguments below. > > > > Mohsen. > > > > On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: > > | Hi, > > | > > | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. > > | > > | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in > > | Vanc
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And all DNS registrar companies would broken out. What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then what useful this kind of DNS would exist? My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some reform. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next > generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted > soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other > disadvantage in the today's DNS. > Please see the section of "What's broken?" in the article of Lenny Foner in > http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the "good" names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. > > Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, > we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if > we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system can be throwed > away. > > The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due to > the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new > domains. > Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the "DNS system can be thowed away" is vacuously true. If you find it non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. > > This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS > using classified hierarchical Domain Names. > I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression expansion of the "?" and "*" characters...) Your milage will vary. --bill > Mohsen Souissi wrote: > I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his > arguments below. > > Mohsen. > > On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: > | Hi, > | > | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. > | > | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in > | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for > | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the > | presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. > | > | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for > | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: > | > | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different > | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is > | not addressed at all. > | > | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application > | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, > | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any > | conventional meaning of that term. > > > > - > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop - Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On 3 Dec 2007, at 20:44, Mohsen Souissi wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments [...] +1 On 4 Dec 2007, at 05:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Enough people (and I'm one of them) are convinced of this that any claim to the contrary needs to be persuasively argued, rather than just baldly stated. [...] we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. +1 /Niall PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: > When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next > generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted > soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed > other disadvantage in the today's DNS. > Please see the section of "What's broken?" in the article of Lenny Foner in > http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the "good" names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. > > Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, > otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other > words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system > can be throwed away. > > The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due > to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new > domains. > Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the "DNS system can be thowed away" is vacuously true. If you find it non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. > > This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS > using classified hierarchical Domain Names. > I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression expansion of the "?" and "*" characters...) Your milage will vary. --bill > Mohsen Souissi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his > arguments below. > > Mohsen. > > On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: > | Hi, > | > | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. > | > | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in > | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for > | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the > | presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. > | > | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for > | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: > | > | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different > | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is > | not addressed at all. > | > | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application > | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, > | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any > | conventional meaning of that term. > > > > - > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other disadvantage in the today's DNS. Please see the section of "What's broken?" in the article of Lenny Foner in http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system can be throwed away. The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new domains. Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS using classified hierarchical Domain Names. Mohsen Souissi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the | presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. | | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: | | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is | not addressed at all. | | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any | conventional meaning of that term. - Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
Mohsen Souissi wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. +1. Brian Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the | presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. | | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: | | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is | not addressed at all. | | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any | conventional meaning of that term. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the | presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. | | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: | | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is | not addressed at all. | | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any | conventional meaning of that term. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
Hi, I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the presence of "dnsop" in the draft name. I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for a dnsop working group item. Specifically: 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is not addressed at all. 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be "the DNS", at least any conventional meaning of that term. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
