> Le 24 juill. 2024 à 13:43, Scott Johnson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi Marc, > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> >> Le 24 juill. 2024 à 11:42, Lorenzo Breda >> <[email protected]> a écrit : >> Why are you against leaving the current TLDs implicitly on Earth >> by default? >> Right. One do not need a special TLD for space. We can use what we have and >> it just works fine. > > I do not disagree with this notion as respects my proposed architecture. 3rd > level domains mapped to off-world domains works just fine, for the low low > price of annual domain renewal. a tld representing each remote world is > preferable, however, because it is just "cooler;" easier to use and more > memorable than a much longer domain. This, however, assumes we are talking > about the same proposal, which we are not. > >> One has just to be careful on remote resolution so that it contains what is >> needed: trust chain, local names, ... >> > > Lets be clear here, Marc. You are talking about a completely different > solution than I am; one predicated on IP only.
But the remote resolution is relevant to any DNS infra in mostly isolated networks. Hence my comment and reference to the draft, as information on how to do that. > Your comment on this thread, without context, only serves to confuse the > other participants. Sorry. Not the intent. Not the reality. > > For example, you are talking about using F-root, right? No. Nothing in the dns-isolated-networks talk about root servers. > That is a very different thing than the functionality which I am describing, > with significantly more network resource usage requirements. My solution > uses BP in some network segments. Personally, I don't think your method will > ever fly, primarily due to security reasons, but I don't troll your threads > about it in a manner which would muddy the waters of those considering your > proposal. I don't mind healthy competition of ideas, but I do expect fair > play. If you wish to contrast the two methods, thats fine, yet unproductive, > IMHO. Just make sure the reader knows you are talking about your proposal, > and not mine. You are reading more intention than reality. I’m just pointing out documented solutions for DNS isolated networks solution (that has been reviewed by few DNS friends-experts). It is not about « yours » or « mine » solution. That is not how IETF works. The whole solution of deep space IP is being discussed elsewhere and not going to discuss here. Respectfully, Marc. > > ScottJ > > > >> This is discussed in: >> - running IP in deep space (noBP<->IP): >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-deepspace-ip-asse >> ssment-01.txt >> - running DNS in remote places: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-many-dnsop-dns-isolated-network >> s-01.txt >> Regards, Marc. >> -- >> Lorenzo Breda >> _______________________________________________ >> dtn mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
