Subject: Re: Fw: [DNSOP] Re: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-02

From: Lican Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:27:02 +0000 (GMT)

I think it is reasonable to let resource name have a human-understanding meaning, not just unique ID. And I argue that every resource can be classifed into a hierarchical domain. I have proposed the resolution for universal resource name. Please see the following:    
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00.txt
   
  Domain name is originally for the easy memory of IP address.  But, today, we can think about in this way. The domain name is allotted by authoritve organization according to provider's contents. It dosn't  need and dosn't allowed to apply a domain name when organizations or  persons that do not provider the corresponding contents and  just want to sell  the domain name for profit.   
  
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

--On 17. oktober 2007 12:46 +0100 Lican Huang 
wrote:

>
> Dear Mr. Stephane Bortzmeyer,
> I mean a server can have many domain names if the server is the
> provider of many classified things. In the future, the lower layer
> domain name can be registered by the user itself.

This is true today. I register my own resources in my own domain.

But - the DNS is not a directory. It offers no way to search for a name if 
you don't know exactly how it is spelled. Thus, putting stuff into the DNS 
tends to be useless as a classification scheme.

So I fail to undestand how registering a domain name for a resource is 
useful when providing an URL for the same resource is so much more 
convenient

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears)

Harald Alvestrand

---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Lican Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:27:02 +0000 (GMT)

Harald Alvestrand

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:24:57 +0000

On 1 Nov 2007, at 10:27, Lican Huang wrote:

> Domain name is originally for the easy memory of IP address.  But,  
> today, we can think about in this way. The domain name is allotted  
> by authoritve organization according to provider's contents. It  
> dosn't  need and dosn't allowed to apply a domain name when  
> organizations or  persons that do not provider the corresponding  
> contents and  just want to sell  the domain name for profit.

	Surely this is about naming policy or registry policy,
	and out of scope for DNSOP ?

	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:24:57 +0000

Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:17:04 +0100

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 10:27:02AM +0000,
 Lican Huang <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I think it is reasonable to let resource name have a
> human-understanding meaning, not just unique ID.

As Niall said, this is becoming out-of-scope. But I plead guilty, I'm
the one who launched the discussion here, in the first place :-)

>   Domain name is originally for the easy memory of IP address. 

No. It is only one of the goals. Another one, much more important in
my opinion, is to provide *stable* identifiers, specially when IP
addresses are PI-addresses, which can change quite often.

In the future, if we get a real separation of identifier and locator,
the DNS will be used only to get meaningful identifiers. But, in the
mean time, the great thing about the DNS is that is shields us
partially from IP address changes.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:17:04 +0100

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:14:32 +0100

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:17:04AM +0100,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> Another one, much more important in my opinion, is to provide
> *stable* identifiers, specially when IP addresses are PI-addresses,
> which can change quite often.

My brain wanted to write PA-addresses but my keyboard typed PI :-(
Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Joe Abley for the fix.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:14:32 +0100

---

From: Lican Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:21:03 +0000 (GMT)

Right.  Domain names are persistent  identifiers. In the future,  it is not ridiculous  to map domain names to other unique IDs other than IP addresses. 
  
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
  On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 10:27:02AM +0000,
Lican Huang wrote 

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.

---

From: Lican Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:21:03 +0000 (GMT)

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:52:38 +0100

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:21:03AM +0000,
 Lican Huang <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 46 lines which said:

> In the future, it is not ridiculous to map domain names to other
> unique IDs other than IP addresses.

In the future??? Do you know that it has been the case for a long
time? Did you read RFC 2536 (and its friends), 3761, 4255, etc???

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:52:38 +0100

---

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:51:37 +0100

On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Lican Huang wrote:

> Right.  Domain names are persistent  identifiers. In the future,   
> it is not ridiculous  to map domain names to other unique IDs other  
> than IP addresses.

Persistent is not the same as stable identifiers as Stephane  
mentioned.  Stable means not likely to change, but eventually can  
change (and will as domain names are traded for money).

> [...]

Interesting reading in this context is an article by Michael J.  
O'Donnel, "Separate handles from names on the Internet",  
Communications of the ACM, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp. 78-83, December  
2005.

-- Benno

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:51:37 +0100

-- Benno

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/