- From: Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@gate.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:12:32 -0400
- 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