- From: Michael Mealling <Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
- To: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
- Cc: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu, mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com
Dirk Herr-Hoyman said this: > 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 guess we disagree on a much more philosophical level here. One of my primary goals is to allow anyone to be both publisher and author at a fairly cheap price. In this case a user can register for a section of an OID space without having to contact or or be approved by his employer or ISP. Once they have a pointer in the namespace they can setup their resolver and be an author. > 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 an ISP doesn't want this then they can block it at a router or run tcpd..... > If we go for another port, I'd like to see it be < 1024, one of the > priviledged ports. I'll have to disagree on this. Its philosophical and not very arguable... -MM -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it. <BR> <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">Michael Mealling</A>
Received on Friday, 16 June 1995 11:08:01 UTC