Re: Large Zone and DNSSEC

[Nathan Jones <njones@connect.com.au>]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:21:36AM +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>It does not matter what you put in the zone, so long you can
>translate abc.com to a.b.c.com in someway. 
>
>As some mention to me, this is also a kludge much like Mark
>proposal. I totally agree but this system have a silent way to
>introduce the hierarchy back into the DNS silently.
>
>I know DNSSEC is not going to fly at its current stage. It is beyond
>understanding for mortals. 

Just as DNSSEC may be beyond understanding for many, I think the idea
of silently introducing hierarchy by transforming abc.com to a.b.c.com
is difficult to understand without some notes on how it will work.

In the example, abc.com would still need to exist in the DNS in order
to provide a translation to a.b.c.com, so the large zone (com) is not
reduced in size anyway.

If the intention is to change the protocol and the software that
implements it such that resolvers just know to try a.b.c.com, then how
would you orchestrate the change; and for what real benefit?

Trying to get my head around your comments, I had a look through the
IDN discussion (http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/) where you said
things like: "Lets go for a truely distributed structure with no
centralized registry model." Does this mean there should be no unique
namespace?

I understand that you are referring to a next generation of DNS, but
it reminded me of "RFC2826 - IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS
Root" in which similar proposals were labelled technically naive.

Perhaps some explanatory notes on how you see this "DNSng" working
would help people better understand your suggestions.

--
nathanj


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.