Re: Namespaces (was: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play)
On Thu, 08 March 2001, Joshua Goodall wrote:
The whole idea of unique human-readable names is broken (I would go as far as to say that the idea of any global name space is silly :)
It shouldn't be. The great mistake with DNS was allowing a hierarchical network engineering convenience to *become* a flat namespace used as a globally-unique identifier for bodies of data.
Somewhere along the process, DNS changed from an address space to to subject space. As an address space, having globally-unique identifiers is important; but as a subject space, searching is more complicated because identifiers aren't unique. Think of the difference between the telephone white pages, and the telephone yellow pages. Or the difference between searching for a book in the library by subject heading, and searching for an street address in a city. Ok, so I wrote the authority control software for MARION database, so I'm a bit biased about how things should work. For example, suppose there is a large corporation which likes to go by the name Disney, and several individuals whose name is Disney. http://www.colapl.org/MARION?key=disney&ind=A Who has priority? Walt Disney, Roy Disney, Rosemary Disney, Dorthy Disney, or Doris Disney? Why does any of them need to have priority over the name used for lookups? If you want their globally unique address (i.e. to send them mail) its not mandatory for it to be the same as the name you search for. How do you go from the name everyone uses, to the "official" name for something. http://www.colapl.org/MARION?key=ibm&ind=A What if someone is trying to find the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company? Other than generating a lot of press, new.net's project doesn't seem to be anything more exciting than a bunch of AOL Keywords (another flat proprietary namespace). DNS is not, nor ever was intended to be a general purpose search tool. That was X.400/X.500's job :-) If someone wanted to do something interesting, they would come up with a new RESOLVER library and interface which searched on something at a higher level than DNS names.
On 8 Mar 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
Somewhere along the process, DNS changed from an address space to to subject space. As an address space, having globally-unique identifiers is important; but as a subject space, searching is more complicated because identifiers aren't unique.
That was inevitable. After all, FQDNs are human-readable. "For every problem there is a simple and obvious solution. Usually that solution is also wrong". Hierarchial name spaces is a choice example of obvious and wrong solution to global naming.
DNS is not, nor ever was intended to be a general purpose search tool. That was X.400/X.500's job :-)
Too bad they !*@!d it...
If someone wanted to do something interesting, they would come up with a new RESOLVER library and interface which searched on something at a higher level than DNS names.
It is already done :) Yahoo, Google, Altavista, etc etc etc :) Just stop issuing alhpanumeric domain names and use numerals only. --vadim
On 8 Mar 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
Other than generating a lot of press, new.net's project doesn't seem to be anything more exciting than a bunch of AOL Keywords (another flat proprietary namespace).
And being "proprietary" where is the real market for this service? To what extent are registrants properly informed that their "domains" do not function for all Internet users. Sure there's information on their web site that they may only function with some 16M users, but will they be up-front about that as people sign up. It is interesting thought that the registration agreement includes... "IN ADDITION, NEW.NET MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES REGARDING ANY MINIMUM NUMBER OF USERS WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO NEW.NET DOMAIN NAMES." I can't imagine suggesting to one of my customers that they rely on a domain that the majority of users can't resolve. So, if they can't rely on it they'll need some other "real" domain (unless they have a specific known target within the cooperating systems). Also, why would someone want a domain with which there is no functional E-Mail. Again, what customer base would be appropriate for this service? I suppose it's possible that I somehow missed the point of all this. Perhaps it's really not intended to be a serious service. Is it possible that this is simply an effort to stir the TLD pot to try to get something moving? In any case, it should be interesting the first time one of my customers proudly informs me of his new domain and wants it implimented. Chuck
participants (3)
-
Charles Scott -
Sean Donelan -
Vadim Antonov