North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: News of ISC Developing BIND Patch

  • From: Vadim Antonov
  • Date: Wed Sep 17 18:21:09 2003

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Mathias Körber wrote:

> > If we take a step back, we could say that the whole Verisign incident
> > demonstrated pretty clearly that the fundamental DNS premise of having no
> > more than one root in the namespace is seriously wrong.  This is the
> > fallacy of "universal classification" so convincingly trashed by
> > J.L.Borges in "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins".  Sigle-root
> > classifications simply do not work in real-world contexts.

> ... for objects which are created outside said classification and need
> to/ want to/should be classified in it. However, the DNS does not
> pretend to classify anything existing outside it in the real-world but
> implements a namespace with the stated goal of providing unique
> identification (which still requires a single-root)

Technically, DNS encodes the authority delegation, _and_ tries to attach
human-readable labels to every entity accessible by the Internet.

If the goal were unique identification, MAC addresses would do just fine.
No need for DNS.

The whole snake nest of issues about DNS revolves around the fact that the
labels themselves carry semantic load. Semantic-free labels do not
generate trademark, fair-use, squatting, etc controversies - and there's
quite a lot of those around us.

The issue with authority delegation is not clear-cut, too, for it raises
the important questions "who's the authority?" and "how authority is
selected?".  This is pretty much the question most wars were fought about.

> So this argument is bogus IMHO...

I would say you should consider it more carefully. 

As is, we have an artificially contentuous structure, which cannot be
fixed.  There are known better methods of converting semantically loaded
labels into pointers to the entities, which do not suffer from the
artificially imposed limitation of seeing everyting as a strict hierarchy.
Most Internet users are well-versed in use of those methods. So the
question here is merely engineering, and convincing people to switch
over.

_Users_ have already voted with their patterns of use... how often do you
see them actually typing domain names in?  Address books, bookmarks, "my
favorites", "Reply-To:" etc are used in most cases, as is Yahoo or Google.  
Your statements, in effect, confirm my position that most people do not
even recognize semantic value of the domain names, considering them mere
unique IDs.

In other words - there are much better search engines than DNS.  Remove
it from the critical path, and the whole Verisign, ICANN, etc issue will
go away, with little practical change in the end-user experience.

--vadim