Subject: Re: Call for Participation, Workshop on Internet naming systems

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:56:54 -0700

> [...]
 >
 > There are now multiple challenges to maintaining that commonality of
 > understanding.
 >
 >   Some naming systems wish to use URIs to identify both a service and
 >   the method of resolution used to map the name to a serving node.
 >   Because there is no common facility for varying the resolution
 >   method in the URI structure, those naming systems must either mint
 >   new URI schemes for each resolution service or infer the resolution
 >   method from a reserved name or pattern. Both methods are currently
 >   difficult and costly, and the effort thus scales poorly.
 >   [...]

Might y'all have pointers to said "naming systems", e.g., specs, 
websites, etc?

thx,

=JeffH

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 23:00:11 -0400

I am also rather unclear about what is being asked about.

Rather a lot of buzzwords that do not identify distinct concepts for me.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Might y'all have pointers to said "naming systems", e.g., specs, websites,
> etc?
>
> thx,
>
> =JeffH
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:50:11 +0200

Hi Jeff,

> etc?
The most recent example in the IETF came up in the reservation of .onion.
As you probably recall, the system envisioned there uses the TOR system for
node resolution, rather than the DNS, but the proponents wanted to use the
names with standard URI schemes.  Reserving that name was a very long
process in which a lot of discussion was needed, and it has kicked off
significant follow on work that suggests the model does not scale well.

One other option discussed with them was moving away from standard URI
schemes and minting URI schemes like https-tor://tor-node/, instead.  That
would work, because the specification of the scheme could describe the
resolution required.  But they would need a new scheme for every
application protocol wanting to use the resolution (so email, xmpp, etc.
would each need to be created and deployed).  Getting deployment of those
schemes was seen to be even harder.

While I hope this example helps illustrate the problem, I want to be clear
that this example isn't the focus of the workshop. The workshop wants to
look at the collection of issues named in the CFP to see if there are
common root causes and potential solutions.

regards,

Ted