[ih] History of Naming on The Internet - is it still relevant?

[Dave Crocker]

On 7/20/2025 3:24 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> The second is a note about the question of "what are we naming?" This 
> is particularly an issue in modern applications in which the network 
> partner of a client may move, split, or merge during a client-service 
> interaction (and thus take on different IP addresses and port numbers 
> [and different transport connections] as that interaction progresses 
> over time.) 


A feature of DNS is that the name is typeless.  The question of name 
semantics is left to layers above the DNS.  Different users of the DNS 
can choose different conventions for the meaning of their names.  The 
DNS does not know or care.

This has proved to be extremely valuable, leaving users of the DNS with 
wonderful and useful freedom to design usage that suits their needs.

The thing that does seem to matter the most, at the DNS level, is 
reliability.  First, simple operational reliability, per the requirement 
for separate, redundant servers.  (On this I always reference Jon 
Postel's recommendation that servers be on different tectonic plates.  A 
sensitivity living in California encourages...)

The other aspect of reliability is long-term.  That is, permanence.  
Some of this might be classed as operational -- ie, for a service layer 
above the DNS.  Some is not.  'Broken' DNS names are often noted, but I 
haven't seem much that deals with it, other than some services claiming 
to provide permanence, but without any technical basis.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social