Re: The internet architecture

[Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

John Day wrote:
> > Please elaborate. I agree that the current resolution protocol is not
> > perfect but what is wrong with the semantics of domain names?
>
> As we have known since the early 80s, naming the host has nothing to do 
> with the problem at hand.  It is sloppy and gets in the way of getting 

"The problem at hand" is what, exactly?  Concretely and specifically.


> it right.  Currently, domain name is a synonym for an IP-address.  The 
> IP-address names the interface and is largely redundant since the MAC 
> address does the same thing.

Ignoring, for the moment, that a domain name does not always map to an IP 
Address, nevermind that it often maps to a set of them, the fact of mapping is 
not quite the same as being "synonymous".  It can be -- and often is -- 
equivalent to find a path to the named resource.  A path is not a synonym.

www.example.com is a common name for the an organization's online web presence.

That sort of description of the name is quite different from the mechanical and 
narrFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Sun Nov 30 21:05:52 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0956F3A67D9;
	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4383A67D9
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id yQ5T0Zz8aXxP for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org
	[IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4486D3A67B6
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-67-127-57-127.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
	[67.127.57.127]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB155ZZX018913
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4933709E.7060905 at dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:34 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: The internet architecture
References: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09A02E6E at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.	net>	<2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBA8 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>	<20081129215726.GA25753 at sources.org>	<4932160E.9060000 at network-heretics.com>	<20081130154919.GA26548 at sources.org>
	<a06240806c559098f7136 at [10.0.1.45]>
In-Reply-To: <a06240806c559098f7136 at [10.0.1.45]>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8698/Sun Nov 30 07:09:19 2008 on
	sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0
	(sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]);
	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>, ietf at ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org



John Day wrote:
> > Please elaborate. I agree that the current resolution protocol is not
> > perfect but what is wrong with the semantics of domain names?
>
> As we have known since the early 80s, naming the host has nothing to do 
> with the problem at hand.  It is sloppy and gets in the way of getting 

"The problem at hand" is what, exactly?  Concretely and specifically.


> it right.  Currently, domain name is a synonym for an IP-address.  The 
> IP-address names the interface and is largely redundant since the MAC 
> address does the same thing.

Ignoring, for the moment, that a domain name does not always map to an IP 
Address, nevermind that it often maps to a set of them, the fact of mapping is 
not quite the same as being "synonymous".  It can be -- and often is -- 
equivalent to find a path to the named resource.  A path is not a synonym.

www.example.com is a common name for the an organization's online web presence.

That sort of description of the name is quite different from the mechanical and 
narrow simplow simplicity of a host name or a synonym for a *set of* IP Addresses that 
might refer to a single machine or to multiple.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


icity of a host name or a synonym for a *set of* IP Addresses that 
might refer to a single machine or to multiple.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf