Re: new port for DNS

Paul Hoffman (ietf-lists@proper.com)
Wed, 21 Jun 1995 18:44:28 -0700


Message-Id: <v02120c04ac0e7960967c@[165.227.40.31]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 18:44:28 -0700
To: dupuy@smarts.com (Alexander Dupuy)
From: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)
Subject: Re: new port for DNS
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

>This is a good point in favor of a separate URN top-level domain, which I have
>previously felt to be unnecessary.  Actually, after seeing this argument, I
>would now favor a separate URN top-level domain to be used for locating all
>URN resolvers, in order to keep the regular DNS names (which do tend to change
>over time) out of URNs.

Just for clarity, are you proposing a domain name system ending with
".urn", such as "proper.urn"? If so, who would assign the second-level
names? The InterNIC? And, if so, what about people outside the US who want
names?

Another similar option is to allow anyone to be a URN service. I earlier
mentioned the fictional URNsRUs, whose US-based domain name might be
urnsrus.com. The naming authority in a URN that was through this company
might look like:
proper.urnsrus.com
3.5.9.2.100.2.urnsrus.com  (Look, Michael: OIDs!)
and so on. There could be many competitors, essentially anyone who wanted
to put up enough secondary name servers to handle the crush of lookup
requests and the updates to their name tables.

As you can tell, I'm still against a central naming hierarchy, even if it
is ".urn". I don't trust the namer delegators to give them away freely and
fairly, I don't trust them to resolve them freely and fairly, and so on.
The current DNS still sounds pretty reliable to me.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing