W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 1995

Re: new port for DNS

From: Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@gate.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:12:32 -0400
Message-Id: <v02120d00ac085affda06@[]>
To: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling), mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro)
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
At 9:19 AM 6/16/95, Michael Mealling wrote:
>Michael Shapiro said this:
>>    What is the reason for wanting a new port for DNS?   Isn't  it
>> enough  to  create  new  top level domains?  Running DNS on a new
>> port would mean installing DNS everywhere to run on this new port
>> (ie  deploying  a second DNS). It you use an new namespace within
>> existing DNS (ie a new top level domain) can't  you  achieve  the
>> same effect?
>Several reasons:

1-3 deleted...

>4. In order for URNs to be 'public'. I.E. we allow anyone to publish, not
>just those that have an in with the system admins; we need the URN
>resolution process to be able to take place on non privilidged ports.
I'm with you up to this point, Michael.  Howerver, here I must disagree
both administratively and philosophically.  If URNs are to be
authoritative, in the same way that domain names are, then allowing for any
Tom, Dick or Harry to set one up is not the way to go.  And if these
servers are to be totally available, it's going to take sysadm
intervention, even on the non-prived ports.

I would also say that the various ISPs who other shell accounts would not
be thrilled if Jill User decides to "try" and set up one of these servers,
although I know you could do this with many of the other servers any way.
But, let's not encourage this behaviour.

If we go for another port, I'd like to see it be < 1024, one of the
priviledged ports.

Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@gate.net> |          I tried to contain myself
CyberBeach Publishing               |                                but
   * Internet publishing services   |                          I got out
Lake Worth, Florida, USA            |
Web: http://www.gate.net/cyberbeach/
Phone:     +1.407.540.8309
Received on Friday, 16 June 1995 10:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:31 UTC