resolution spaces
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Jun 29 11:47:05 CEST 2007
While working on semantic address resolution I consider the DDDS
possibilities (RFC 3401 ++]. I block each time on a limitation which
seems to be the same the IDN support is confronted to, the resolution
of which could be a "virtual presentation layer".
The DNS is a DDDS application. DDDS are based upon a fundamental
assumption which makes them to resolve only in using the data from
the provided "application unique string" (in our case the domain
name). No outside knowledge can be used (such an external knowledge
of a script or language or [quoted in RFC 3401] time of the day,
financial transactions, rights managements, etc.). One could imagine
the problems of resolution space this would lead to.
This obliges MLDNs issues to be solved in a common DNS resolution
space by default, leading to the IDNA compromise and all the problems
we face. Would it not be easier to face each namespace with its own
corresponding resolution space?
When I compare with the LISP discussion, I come with the idea that if
the Internet technology is not understood in a way supporting what I
call "externets" (i.e. internal external network look alike), this
does not mean that it could not. One solution John Klensin suggested
was to use classes. This is certainly the best one (however classes
are limited in number in TCP/IP). Another simpler and deployable
solution could be at the OS level.
When I want to change my DNS resolution parameters, OSes only propose
me only one possibility. Should they propose me an options based list
of nameservers, I could define different resolution spaces, for
example based upon the TLD. "xn--vbevde" could be resolved by
NS1...series, more generally "xn--" by NS2...series, and the rest of
the domain names by the legacy DNS system.
Obviously this could be implemented at root, ISP, and every private
name server, moreover if the wild card extension is extended to an
"..--*" option. But the individual OS level resolves the problem of
update : compute would be multilingualy enabled not. Without any risk
of pollution. The grid of local resolvers could be documented in the
"netlocale" file with a great granularity (cf. my Draft on cctags).
I am not familiar with the socket software but I suppose that the
fork could be established there. This would permit to customize the
resolution spaces against phishing problems. The other "xx--"
namespaces would be immediately supported, that could use other DDDS
resolution systems, or more sophisticated non-linear ones.
jfc
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list