IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:06 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Excerpt from latest draft September 25, 2007, September 25, 2007

This document is an update to the original specification of DNAME in
RFC 2672 [RFC2672]. DNAME was conceived to help with the problem of
maintaining address-to-name mappings in a context of network
renumbering. With a careful set-up, a renumbering event in the
network causes no change to the authoritative server that has the
address-to-name mappings. Examples in practice are classless reverse
address space delegations and punycode alternates for domain spaces.

Other usage of DNAME lies in redirection of name spaces. For
example, a zone administrator may want subtrees of the DNS to contain
the same information. DNAME is also used for redirection of ENUM
domains to another maintaining party.

This update to DNAME does not change the wire format or the handling
of DNAME Resource Records by existing software. A new UD (Understand
DNAME) bit in the EDNS flags field can be used to signal that CNAME
synthesis is not needed. Discussion is added on problems that may be
encountered when using DNAME.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/...s-dname-05.txt

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9d0ed9794745b8
__________________
All offers to sell are void.

Last edited by Rubber Duck; 1st November 2007 at 02:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:17 PM
jacksonm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,843
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 985
jacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to jacksonm Send a message via Skype™ to jacksonm
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

The DNAME specification work can go on at IETF, but it would appear at the current time that ICANN is hell bent against implementing it in the ICANN root nameservers. IETF has absolutely zero to do with ICANN. We could have ICANN, MYCANN, and WHYCANN and IETF specification/standardization work would be equally useful to all of them.

As I have been saying, ICANN does not have exclusive worldwide rights to be the only organization running a set of root nameservers.

.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,838
iTrader: (43)
Rep Power: 1595
markits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enough
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Good find Dave,
It surely suggests that dname is not dead yet, which is a good and positive news. Let's all wait and see.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:27 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

They are definitely not ready to implement it and will not be able to until they get the necessary clearances from SSAC. ICANN themselves could not tell you whether DNAMES is a runner or not, that is not how PDP works within ICANN. The Staff can tell you there are no current plans, which basically means the Board has not approved any PDP specifically relating to DNAME. You cannot even really say whether things are in the pipe or not, because that is just not how things work. What I can tell you is IETF would not be working on this if there was no interest, and by that I mean finance. Where that is coming from who knows, but this might give some clues:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9d0ed9794745b8

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonm
The DNAME specification work can go on at IETF, but it would appear at the current time that ICANN is hell bent against implementing it in the ICANN root nameservers. IETF has absolutely zero to do with ICANN. We could have ICANN, MYCANN, and WHYCANN and IETF specification/standardization work would be equally useful to all of them.

As I have been saying, ICANN does not have exclusive worldwide rights to be the only organization running a set of root nameservers.

.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:40 PM
jacksonm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,843
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 985
jacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to jacksonm Send a message via Skype™ to jacksonm
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Any person can write and submit a draft to IETF, and it will be published. They accept all drafts which meet their document formatting standards.

From the draft, you have one guy from NIST and one from NL working on this. Don't know what conclusions to draw from that, as they are larger organizations, however just because there exists an IETF draft doesn't necessarily mean that there is any thing else than a bored geek behind it.

.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:46 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonm
Any person can write and submit a draft to IETF, and it will be published. They accept all drafts which meet their document formatting standards.

From the draft, you have one guy from NIST and one from NL working on this. Don't know what conclusions to draw from that, as they are larger organizations, however just because there exists an IETF draft doesn't necessarily mean that there is any thing else than a bored geek behind it.

.

The Google Groups thread has references to Affilias and Neustar, and we all know that Verisign instigated the whole thing, so it all seems pretty much rooted within the GNSO.

The bottom line is that nobody sees the current gTLD implementation time table requiring DNAME any time soon, because they are confident that initially at least things can be handled within the DNS itself. It would seem that if the number of strings requiring Aliasing gets very large then that is going to present major problems, but they can get up and running using this method and it may even have advantages for large volume extensions.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 02:55 PM
jacksonm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,843
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 985
jacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to jacksonm Send a message via Skype™ to jacksonm
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Have you seen any news from the past day or two regarding aliasing coming out of LA?

It all seems fairly secretive to me. I'm dying to hear something official.

.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 03:03 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonm
Have you seen any news from the past day or two regarding aliasing coming out of LA?

It all seems fairly secretive to me. I'm dying to hear something official.

.
What everyone seems to forget is that this is exactly what the DNS does. It Aliases IP addresses with Domain Names. That is what it was designed to do and that it is what happens each time a browser query is made.

The ICANN servers return the IP Address of the Registry Nameservers for the extension, which then returns their own IP record for the Second Level String.

To Alias it would seem that all that really needs to happen is to have duplicate IP addresses for different First Level strings. If dot Com can be pointed at the Verisign Nameservers so can .WTF!

Little of this has much bearing on the discussions at ICANN. Most of those in attendance wouldn't have a clue about any of this stuff.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 03:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,838
iTrader: (43)
Rep Power: 1595
markits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enough
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

.wtf!:p :p
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 03:46 PM
jacksonm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,843
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 985
jacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished roadjacksonm is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to jacksonm Send a message via Skype™ to jacksonm
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
The ICANN servers return the IP Address of the Registry Nameservers for the extension, which then returns their own IP record for the Second Level String.
Not exactly. A query for www.foo.com would first send a query for .com nameserver's IPs to the root, if they're not already cached. Secondly, a NS (nameserver) query for foo.com is sent to the .com nameservers, if they're not already cached. Thirdly, a CNAME query is sent to the foo.com nameservers, if the www.foo.com name isn't already cached.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
To Alias it would seem that all that really needs to happen is to have duplicate IP addresses for different First Level strings. If dot Com can be pointed at the Verisign Nameservers so can .WTF!
This is only half of a solution; it only provides forward mapping. Reverse mapping is still required.

1. Let's assume that .xn--c is aliased to .com

2. Let's assume the host xn--a.xn--b.xn--c has the IP address of 1.2.3.4

3. Perform a reverse DNS lookup on 1.2.3.4
- expected answer is xn--a.xn--b.xn--c
- actual returned answer is xn--a.xn--b.com (this breaks SSL and all sorts of other things)


To implement an effective solution, both forward and reverse records must be handled properly. The solution would be when you register nameservers for xn--b.com, you literally register them as xn--b.xn--c if xn--c is what you want to be returned from reverse lookups. Also an extra step would need to be added to the DNS resolver protocol for reverse lookups - consult the extension that the domain owner has registered for the domain's nameservers.

This is just one solution, but something along these lines needs to be implemented. And that will take time.

.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2007, 03:53 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: So which Moron concluded DNAME was dead?

Thanks for the technical clarification.

It seems clear from all that I have read that the ICANN boys know exactly how this is done even if they don't openly discuss it so that the rest of us are fully up to speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonm
Not exactly. A query for www.foo.com would first send a query for .com nameserver's IPs to the root, if they're not already cached. Secondly, a NS (nameserver) query for foo.com is sent to the .com nameservers, if they're not already cached. Thirdly, a CNAME query is sent to the foo.com nameservers, if the www.foo.com name isn't already cached.




This is only half of a solution; it only provides forward mapping. Reverse mapping is still required.

1. Let's assume that .xn--c is aliased to .com

2. Let's assume the host xn--a.xn--b.xn--c has the IP address of 1.2.3.4

3. Perform a reverse DNS lookup on 1.2.3.4
- expected answer is xn--a.xn--b.xn--c
- actual returned answer is xn--a.xn--b.com (this breaks SSL and all sorts of other things)


To implement an effective solution, both forward and reverse records must be handled properly. The solution would be when you register nameservers for xn--b.com, you literally register them as xn--b.xn--c if xn--c is what you want to be returned from reverse lookups. Also an extra step would need to be added to the DNS resolver protocol for reverse lookups - consult the extension that the domain owner has registered for the domain's nameservers.

This is just one solution, but something along these lines needs to be implemented. And that will take time.

.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54