Re: Name ownership and LLMNR (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution...)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 2-sep-2005, at 0:17, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Flight of imagination: DNSSEC-Signed records (with the SIG/KEY  
> chain in additional data?) would seem to be one possibility to  
> "prove" that the data being presented was "legitimate" under DNS  
> delegation rules, even when you don't have a present connection to  
> the Internet.

Right. I'm looking forward to seeing a protocol that incorporates  
this notion.

> My imagination doesn't fly far enough at this time of night to  
> figure out any relationship beteen a ".local" name and the term  
> "legitimacy". But it's late in the evening, so my imagination is  
> not flying very far - perhaps mDNS works because they deliberately  
> abandoned the idea of name ownership.

Don't forget that the purpose of multicast DNS / Zeroconf /  
Rendezvous / Bonjour is service discovery. When you've discovered a  
service it's helpful to be able to refer to it by name, but the whole  
name lookup thing seems almost incidental.

> YMMV.

Well, isn't the purpose of a standards organization to make sure that  
even though your milage may vary, at least you know whether those  
miles are 1609 or 1852 meters in length?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf