On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:13 +0200, Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: >> Is there a particular reason that DNS is a better mechanism than HTTP, >> in your view? Or is that an implementation detail? > > The DNS occurred to me because it's already used for carrying domain > names, and also because I've been doing DNS for a long time, so it's a > comfortable tool for me. > > HTTP would work as long as the queries were for specific domain names. > However, you would miss taking advantage of all the work DNS server > implementors have done to make DNS lookups really fast. > > Also, I suspect the overhead of an HTTP request is substantially higher > than the overhead of a DNS request when you think about all the groovy > headers that normally get stuffed into HTTP, particularly if you want to > use SSL. With DNSSEC, the DNSSEC server signs a zone once and then > just answers you with the signed data when you ask for it. Whereas with > HTTPS the HTTP server has to re-sign the data for every query. The way I envision a dynamically updated system for this (see my draft), the information would be grouped for each TLD in a single file that the client downloads every 30 days when needed. That means that the overhead is kept to a minimum. Where the information in the file(s) comes from is a separate topic. It can be a database maintained somewhere, or it could be DNS (but in that case it would have to be traversable). -- Sincerely, Yngve N. Pettersen ******************************************************************** Senior Developer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opera Software ASA http://www.opera.com/ Phone: +47 24 16 42 60 Fax: +47 24 16 40 01 ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
