RE: New I-D:draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Otmar Lendl
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:02 AM
>
> The DNS protocol makes some assumptions about the environment it
> operates in. Caching, idempotent queries, public queries, ...
> We have already layered a few additions on the base protocol, from DNS
> views
> (different answers for different clients), TSIG (authentication of
> clients)
> to private roots.

DNS views are not an extensions to the protocol, AFAIK.  They're purely internal to the DNS server, based on who asked it a query, no?  In some ways this draft is making a view explicitly signaled.  ;)


> Yes, the incremental change ist not that big. The question remains:
>
> Have we now reached the point where we should stop fiddling with the
> DNS protocol and should instead look for a directory lookup protocol
> which was designed from the beginning to support authenticated and
> complex queries returning structured data?

Nope.  Several such protocols already exist and are available, if people want to use them.  DNS as a protocol still has advantages over the others.

You also make it sound like we "fiddle" with the DNS protocol constantly or consistently.  AFAIK, that hasn't been the case with respect to ENUM.  Unless you're saying new service types are extensions to the protocol itself.


> As this is not for e164.arpa, but private trees instead, do you actually
> need the sub-tree delegation feature of DNS/ENUM? Or is ENUM just used
> as a simple query protocol into a single database?

Both.  The sub-tree model is incredibly useful for scaling in bigger networks or handling federations/registries, and it's also the case that it sometimes is just a simple query protocol to a single DB.

-hadriel