Re: new port for DNS

Michael Mealling (Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu)
Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:08:43 -0400 (EDT)


From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199506161508.LAA26022@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: new port for DNS
To: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu, mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <v02120d00ac085affda06@[199.227.125.149]> from "Dirk Herr-Hoyman" at Jun 16, 95 10:12:32 am

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>