[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

At 10:58 +0200 6/7/05, Peter Koch wrote:
>Jim Reid wrote:
>
>>  Ed, I'm not sure I understand the second part of your trade-off. The
>>  benefits of better label compression and streamlined names seem clear
>
>well, I do understand "better label copmpression" but I don't understand
>"streamlined names". What's the real benefit of those?

Name the 13 root servers.  Now lookup the servers for (say) .ba and 
try to memorize them.  Come back in an hour and name them.

That's the difference between streamlined naming and not.

Trite, I know.  "Streamlined" just refers to being able to easily 
enumerate them on a moment's notice, which may be important during an 
operations maneuver.

>"prettier"? Name servers are objects in the DNS which are pointed at due
>to their special function. Just using their names as "aliases" to some
>address misses the point. Why not get rid of these domain names in the
>NS RDATA and point to IP addresses directly (sounds familiar, eh)?

There are some places where "looks" and "optics" are important - 
these places are usually not found very close to machine rooms and 
telco demarcs. ;)

Why not point to IP addresses?  For flexibility.  When I want to 
renumber a name server, there's no need to update the parent's NS 
copy of my set.  (Kinda like the DNSSEC need for the DS record.)

>There might be actual operators to confuse.

Hmmm, gratuitous cynical remark withheld. ;)

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.