Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
My draft is about to handle possible problems when huge amount of domain names when Internet is in Ipv6 stage. Because of unlimited amount of Ipv6 addresses, unlimited amount of hosts ( servers, PC, even mobile phones, etc ) will have static Ip addresses in the Internet. So, these hosts may require domain names if we use Domain Name Systems as the way today. One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount domain names. I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle successively with huge amount domain names in the future. That is why I wrote a distributed-dns-implementation draft to try to solve this problem. Another question is when there are so huge amount domain names in the future, why we don't give these domain names semantic meaning?Can you figure out what's the meaning about www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com from bilions of domain names? You may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get the link of www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are useless , because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. You may say we use domain names as stable name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use these ugly domain names? Why not semantic domain names? How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN controls top level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled by virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to the clasification of contents. In this way, we can figure out hieararchical classification of contents very easily by trace down the heararchical domain names. If domain names are named as this way , we can easily add SEARCH power in DNS just like my draft. Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain names in the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic domain names, and let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today. Lican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:10:52AM +, Lican Huang wrote: If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And all DNS registrar companies would broken out. perhaps you are right. at this point we don't have enough data. What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then what useful this kind of DNS would exist? at what poiint in time did the string microsoft gain any sort of human memorable meaning? what would have been the result if Bill Gates named his new company jksdfjsdfdfsdf? 25 years later, it would be a globally recognizable mark and you would be arguing over other strings. My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some reform. you are entitled to your opinion. others are entitled to thier opinions as well. you seem to have failed, this time, to persuade people that adding search to the DNS is a wise prudent thing for the evolution of the protocol. im my own case, having implemented rudimentary search in the DNS - i can't recommend it for anyting other than as an interesting academic exercise. the pieces you have written drafts about fail to include a key, critical component of a DNS with Search capability. Still, an interesting stab at a perceived problem. It might make more sense if you actually had all the required peices documented. --bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other disadvantage in the today's DNS. Please see the section of What's broken? in the article of Lenny Foner in http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the good names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
Lican Huang (huang_lican) writes: One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount domain names. Define huge -- it's already pretty huge today. I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle successively with huge amount domain names in the future. Why ? Another question is when there are so huge amount domain names in the future, why we don't give these domain names semantic meaning? Can you figure out what's the meaning about www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com from bilions of domain names? DNS is a labelling mechanism, as has been pointed out before. I don't think people care about assigning meaning to www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. You may say we can use SEARCH by the key words and get the link of www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. But, in this way, domain names are useless , because we can totally use IP address or any other handle to represent www.u8erbjsdhdfdsdf.com. And we don't because the idea was to have a labelling mechanism that was distinct from the addressing mechanisme. Nothing more. You may say we use domain names as stable name because Ip address may be changed. But , why use these ugly domain names? Why not semantic domain names? Because it's not DNS anymore ? How to name semantic domain names? We can let specific virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies ) to do. That is, ICANN controls top level domains. Lower level domain names is controlled by virtual organizations ( or registrar comanies) according to the clasification of contents. In this way, we can figure out hieararchical classification of contents very easily by trace down the heararchical domain names. But it's not the same protocol and architecture is it ? Semantic domain names does not takeover the current domain names in the first stage. We can use new TLDs to manage semantic domain names, and let the old TLDs to be managed as the way today. The second part may be interesting, but I still fail to see how the existing DNS architecture will not be adequate for IPv6. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On 3 Dec 2007, at 20:44, Mohsen Souissi wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments [...] +1 On 4 Dec 2007, at 05:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Enough people (and I'm one of them) are convinced of this that any claim to the contrary needs to be persuasively argued, rather than just baldly stated. [...] we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. +1 /Niall PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And all DNS registrar companies would broken out. What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then what useful this kind of DNS would exist? My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some reform. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other disadvantage in the today's DNS. Please see the section of What's broken? in the article of Lenny Foner in http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the good names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system can be throwed away. The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new domains. Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the DNS system can be thowed away is vacuously true. If you find it non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS using classified hierarchical Domain Names. I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression expansion of the ? and * characters...) Your milage will vary. --bill Mohsen Souissi wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the | presence of dnsop in the draft name. | | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: | | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is | not addressed at all. | | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be the DNS, at least any | conventional meaning of that term. - Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop - Sent from Yahoo! #45; the World#39;s favourite mail.___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:10:52AM +, Lican Huang wrote: If SEARCH outside DNS were full power, then DNS would disappear soon. And all DNS registrar companies would broken out. perhaps you are right. at this point we don't have enough data. What is the difference between www.microsoft.com and www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com if they represent for the same address of http page? We can browser the micorsoft's web page through the link of the SEARCH output easily. But if microsoft company used www.jksdfjsdfdfsdf.com for its domain name, then what useful this kind of DNS would exist? at what poiint in time did the string microsoft gain any sort of human memorable meaning? what would have been the result if Bill Gates named his new company jksdfjsdfdfsdf? 25 years later, it would be a globally recognizable mark and you would be arguing over other strings. My opion is that in the future if DNS would survive, DNS must have some reform. you are entitled to your opinion. others are entitled to thier opinions as well. you seem to have failed, this time, to persuade people that adding search to the DNS is a wise prudent thing for the evolution of the protocol. im my own case, having implemented rudimentary search in the DNS - i can't recommend it for anyting other than as an interesting academic exercise. the pieces you have written drafts about fail to include a key, critical component of a DNS with Search capability. Still, an interesting stab at a perceived problem. It might make more sense if you actually had all the required peices documented. --bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other disadvantage in the today's DNS. Please see the section of What's broken? in the article of Lenny Foner in http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the good names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system can be throwed away. The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new domains. Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the DNS system can be thowed away is vacuously true. If you find it non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS using classified hierarchical Domain Names. I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression expansion of the ? and * characters...) Your milage will vary. --bill Mohsen Souissi wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered
Re: [DNSOP] draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 04:27:06AM +, Lican Huang wrote: When Ipv4 addresses will be Exhausted in the near future and the next generation Intenert( Ipv6) will take over, DNS names will also be exhausted soon with the increase of hosts and users. Lenny Foner has pointed other disadvantage in the today's DNS. Please see the section of What's broken? in the article of Lenny Foner in http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html. Full IPv4 utilization and increasing use of IPv6 is completely orthonginal to DNS label exaustion. Some have argued that all the good names are taken; e.g. the DNS is exausted. This was first proposed in 1996 (to my memory) yet more than a decade later, we see that the domain name system is robust and growing. With the inherent hierarchical structure of the DNS lable, the mathmatical upper bound is pretty high and we are no where near DNS name exaustion. If you have actual data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see the studies. Domain Names in DNS must have some human-understanding meaning it, otherwise, we can just use IP addresses or numerials for the names. In other words, if we use human-not-understanding Names in DNS, the DNS system can be throwed away. The draft namespace is different with the today's DNS namespace. But, due to the exhaustion of Names in DNS in the near future, The DNS will add new domains. Why adding new domain names with semantic meaning in the future? DNS names do not -HAVE- to have human understandable components. In many cases, this is highly desired -BUT- is not required for use. And yes, numeric literals have been used in the past. Use of the IP address instead of the name is one of the failures of application design. The IP address indicates WHERE a node is in the Internet topology, not the identity of the node. The Name is the indicator of the node IDENTITY. the DNS maps names to addresses and makes no assurance as to the human friendliness of the name or the reachability of the address. Your assertion that the DNS system can be thowed away is vacuously true. If you find it non-useful, there is no requirement for you to use it. Many people use the DNS to get a lable, memorable or not, and then use other tools to map that lable into something meaningful... e.g. SEARCH. It does not invalidate the use of the DNS in any way. This draft can be used for search the locatons of the resources if the DNS using classified hierarchical Domain Names. I think I prefer SEARCH to be outside the DNS (having actually built a varient of the DNS which supported regular expression expansion of the ? and * characters...) Your milage will vary. --bill Mohsen Souissi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have read the I-D as well and I second Joe's point of view and his arguments below. Mohsen. On 03 Dec, Joe Abley wrote: | Hi, | | I have read your draft, draft-licanhuang-dnsop-urnresolution-00. | | The question was raised just now in the dnsop working group meeting in | Vancouver as to whether the content of this draft was suitable for | adoption as a working group item. The question was triggered by the | presence of dnsop in the draft name. | | I have read your document. I do not believe it is a suitable basis for | a dnsop working group item. Specifically: | | 1. The document describes a namespace which is substantially different | form what is available in the DNS today. The existing DNS namespace is | not addressed at all. | | 2. The document seems to address an extension to (or an application | for) the protocol described in draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns, | which (to this reader) seems clearly not to be the DNS, at least any | conventional meaning of that term. - Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
