Subject: Re: Little endians, big endians, and 16 bit eggs

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:39:16 +0000

--On 23 January 2005 03:57 +0000 Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> after EDNS0, the foundations are just fine, thanks.  "more weight."

I'm not sure that means buildings of any and every type should be built on
top of them though. There may be other types of foundations better suited
to certain types of architecture (pun intended).

As an example, I am not sure whether DNS (alone, rather than over some
other protocol) is the right basis for a directory service where (a) it is
necessary to securely authenticate both client and resolver to eachother,
where there are many to many relationships for large values of "many", and
(b) it is necessary to move large amounts of directory data (c) it is
necessary to encrypt the wire protocol against snooping (d) subsecond
lookup latency is not that important. Whilst I'm sure one *could*
reengineer DNS to do that, I think I'd prefer to do it over https:// with
some certificate management scheme. Sometimes I wonder whether some of the
proposed DNS variants (e.g. carrying large amounts of XML) would not be
better done with a one stage indirection at the DNS layer, and a solution
using some other well known protocol.

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:19:36 +0100

Regarding b) "large objects" I wonder if the1987 definition is valid also 2005.
I would expect that public key stuff  to be less than 4K and so
would most likely XML schemes as well.   4K seems like a reasonable
object these days.

A factor of 8 in 18 years is IMHO a *very* modest improvement.

It seems that no reengineering is necessary either.  Assuming that EDNS0
is applicable.  Or reverting to a scheme where you using UDP
get the authoritative NSs and then with TCP get the "fat" object
directly from the source.

Regarding the other things, at least I agree.

Anders R

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Bligh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul Vixie" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Alex Bligh" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 13:39
Subject: Re: Little endians, big endians, and 16 bit eggs 

Alex