Peter Thomassen wrote on 2022-08-13 13:36:
On 8/13/22 15:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
...
we don't need new terminology ("dotted names") to talk about domain
names, which are older in concept and implementation than the dns is.
Sure, you're right. I used "dotted name" here only to prevent that when
I write "domain name", people will think "DNS name". I think that's a
common mix-up.
i suggest that we adopt the technology "domain names (which is a concept
that precedes DNS itself)" whenever we are trying to talk about the name
space as distinct from the protocol.
ideally the domain name system would have left a carve-out for domain
names that were not expected to be served through the first such "domain
name system", but were rather reserved for future domain name systems.
if we'd known at the time that IP was going to beat OSI we'd've planned
better? i know a lot of us would have liked YP/NIS to have been able to
live inside YP.ALT or some such. similarly for XNS and DECNet and OSI
and AppleTalk and so on.
by camping onto the whole of the domain name space, DNS (the domain name
system) has blocked research into new naming systems. warren's .ALT
proposal can begin to undo that harm. internet standards should describe
roads not walls. i am no fan of blockchain naming, but i'd like those
systems to reach the market rather than be prevented from doing so.
But I did not mean to introduce new terminology. The point of my message
was that I disagree with
People have projects outside the DNS and want to name them with DNS
names.
thanks for making that clear. introduction of the new term "dotted
names" was a distraction from your intent.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
