On 9 Mar 2012, at 18:05, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Here's my list of "desired behaviors" for name resolution, proposed for
> inclusion in the architecture document; comments and suggestions welcome:
Thanks - here are some comments, without my hat on:
> * Disconnected operation ("fate sharing"): name resolution for reachable
> devices continues if the local network is disconnected from the global
> Internet
Yes, absolutely!
> * Relative name resolution: some naming convention that allows name
> resolution while mitigating the need to know an absolute location in the
> global DNS namespace
Hmm, I'm uneasy about this one.
I've been vocal in my complaints about how broken the DNS Search Path mechanism
is. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security implications of
using a relative location when a mobile device is moving between networks.
> * Unmanaged operation
Yes
> * Efficient message utilization: for example, keep unwanted traffic off of an
> IEEE802.15.4 network
Yes
> * Representation in the global DNS namespace, for access from off-net
Yes.
A related issue, also touched on above, is the local namespace. That is,
should there be a single namespace used in the Homenet, regardless of whether
the query mechanism is unicast DNS, mDNS, or xmDNS (per Kerry Lynn's draft), or
even something that isn't DNS at all?
I'm OK with the idea of a non-DNS based protocol using a pseudo TLD to indicate
that it's something different (c.f. ".UUCP"), but to me it just feels wrong
that this should be necessary when using stuff that's _so_ close to "normal"
unicast DNS.
Ray
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
