Subject: Re: OASIS and new RR types

From: Julian Mehnle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:41:17 +0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> You still suffer from thinking that the world has some form of
> obligation to follow the proposals of this committee without any effort
> on the member's part to convince them that this is the case.

True, but there is no obligation on part of the world to care about what 
standards Microsoft chooses to implement or to ignore, either.

Microsoft's laziness shouldn't stop the world from making full use of 
standards that have existed for a long time.

> Until SPF appeared there was no mainstream proposal to add records to
> the DNS to support a feature that was not principaly an extension of the
> DNS itself.

I wonder if MS is going to implement the SPF RR type, which is part of one 
of their own protocols after all, in their next DNS resolver/server 
releases...

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:15:21 -0700

On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> obligation to follow the proposals of this committee without any  
> effort on the member's part to convince them that this is the case.

Atlas a proprietary distributed peer-to-peer name resolution PNRP  
protocol might be seen as an alternative.  IPv6 addresses identify a  
node, and SSDP or a seed server boot-strap when retained state  
fails.  For now, UDP encapsulation of IPv6 using STUN techniques  
bridge complex and dynamic routes.  Security depends upon initial  
passwords or ad hoc exchanges of certificates to establish server- 
less relations within groups.  No registrars or centralized authorities.

- patents:
6,912,622
7,051,102
7,065,587
7,068,789
7,089,561

- ports:
Windows Peer-to-Peer Grouping - port 3587
Peer Name Resolution Protocol (PNRP) - port 3450

-Doug

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:34:05 +0200

> fails.  For now, UDP encapsulation of IPv6 using STUN techniques  

It is probably lots easier then to just use another DNS client library on
Windows. The DNS protocol is not the problem, the flakey libraries are.

Using another protocol would require another library in any case.

Kind regards.

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:05:13 -0700

On Aug 11, 2006, at 4:34 PM, bert hubert wrote:

> It is probably lots easier then to just use another DNS client  
> library on Windows. The DNS protocol is not the problem, the flakey  
> libraries are.
>

This alternative will soon reside atop the OS network stack and  
utilize a DNS-ified namespace.  Integrating server applications from  
the same vendor is problematic due to DLL issues.  DNS introduces  
still other dependencies.  Not just one system, but the entire  
infrastructure is affected.  Handling unknown RR types should have  
been an easier task, assuming added functionality from DNS was desired.

-Doug