On 08/08/2012 15:09, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 01:03:11PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> It certainly is. But see >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-referral-ps >> especially section 4.2 "FQDNs are not sufficient". > > I thought one of the things we were trying to do was to address > exactly the failure modes in that section of the I-D?
Yes, I guess that's right. I hadn't looked at it that way. > Perhaps I'm being naive, but I've been working from the assumption > that, if you want to talk to something on the Internet, you need an > unambiguous way to identify it. Historically, the best we've had for > that has been the DNS, because it provides a layer of indirection so > that you can have stable identifiers in the face of changing IP > addresses. What's actually happened (IMHO) is that people trying to solve the reference problem have come up with additional ID spaces to solve their particular problem - often hanging them off a trouble-free FQDN to get the top level of uniqueness for free. But then they have to invent things like STUN, ICE or supernodes to get connectivity to those IDs. > Given the way the relevant markets have gone, it turns out that DNS > names are rather harder to administer and use for ordinary end users > than we might like. But there's no reason that has to persist, and it > seems to me that if we're going to solve the problems people have > using homenet-type resources on the global Internet, then solving the > DNS piece in a user-friendly way is going to yield greater benefit > than alternatives like ginning up some trick to make mDNS names > sometimes work outside their natural context. I'm inclined to agree. If we phrase it in terms of specifically eliminating the problems in my draft, I'll even be happy about it ;-). Brian > > Best, > > A > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
