[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

Edward Lewis wrote:

> >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.

hmm, I tried. I could remember A-M.root-servers.net but missed two of BA's
servers. However, the only address I could recall was ns.ripe.net's,
because it is so "pretty". Now, wouldn't that call for beautifying addresses?
Seriously, a side effect of those efficienmt naming schemes is information
hiding.


> 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.)

So, Jim tells me that he likes to have dedicated names so he doesn't have
to change the delegation once the server's name changes and you argue that
renumbering is easier if just names are used (instead of IP adresses or,
to the same extent, per-zone server names and their necessary glue records).
I guess we can't have both. I'm with you.

-Peter