6 ms·

There’s a lesson or two in understanding and respecting the difference between the two technologies you’re discussing. www.example.com. A 192.0.2.1, for exampl

There’s a lesson or two in understanding and respecting the difference between the two technologies you’re discussing. www.example.com. A 192.0.2.1, for example, will work for both HTTP and SSH and whatever else you want to put there. If you have SSH on 22/tcp and HTTP on 80/tcp and HTTP over TLS on 443/tcp, all of those are reachable via the same exact A record in DNS without even clarifying what port you intend. Plain “ssh www.example.com” would work just fine. That’s why your statements about subversion of the DNS and squatting on DNS RR types show you to not understand what you’re dealing with, which makes your emotional state about it even more discouraging. You seem to be upset that HTTP has a well-known port. That’s the only sense I can make from what you’re saying, anyway, because you’re ranting at something you seem to have an extremely loose grip on understanding. Hundreds, if not thousands, of protocols start their life with gethostbyname, which looks at A/AAAA. That’s not unique to HTTP and, more importantly, doesn’t deny the A and AAAA RRs for any other purpose. Your gripe makes no sense. The apex record problem has to do with the DNS specification and the behavior of CNAMEs. It was an issue before the Web existed (crazy, right?). I sense that your career has primarily been involved with DNS as an enabling mechanism for HTTP systems, probably mostly working with virtual DNS hosts like VIPs (given that you incorrectly distinguish “hosts” from the apparent squatting you’re observing in another comment) and you have next to zero context on how very different they are and how little they have to do with each other. Before you start accusing people of middle fingers and such, you might want to put aside your rage and question yourself: do I fully understand what I’m mad about?

inopinatus 4y ago
Welcome back, rosndo.
- ghoulish45 4y ago
  - inopinatus 4y ago
    Someone who was banned, and briefly notorious for making wildly inaccurate personal judgements, piling on belittling invective in the woefully misguided belief it lend credence to their argument, seeking & sowing vehemence where none was present, and then creating additional accounts willy-nilly in hope of bypassing the inevitable. Which is to say, you were wrong in every pernicious assumption, and in a manner that thoroughly embodies the ghost of that individual, and consequently not worth anyone's energy debating with any further.
    - ghoulish45 4y ago
      - inopinatus 4y ago
        I leave it to other visitors to assess whether making disparaging statements about someone's emotional state, career, and competence, qualifies as "personal", and I have not described my own feelings, except my disappointment with one facet of the development of HTTP. I'd have expected someone claiming to be in the loop regarding DNS developments to bring up the more substantial topic of the SVCB and HTTPS records, which are the topic of an ongoing draft¹, and which may go some way towards ameliorating the issues. But no; apparently, low-grade sledging it is. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/10/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https..., for the curious.
        ghoulish45 4y ago
        You don’t understand DNS. I don’t understand how to make sushi. Acknowledging those things is not a personal attack. Your major failure here is assuming that observations of your emotional state and your career experiences, and how those pertain to your mastery of the domain you’re speaking to (wildly incorrectly), are observations about you. Given that you also assumed someone who was banned here sought out an opportunity to shut you down, again, I have to return to an unhealthy ego driving your interactions. You are nobody. I am nobody. You suck at DNS. That’s fine. You can get better. I have no idea who you are and I’ll forget you when I close this tab. It’s really important that you understand that, because your comment style leads me to believe that you don’t. Teaching DNS about application protocols is a mistake every time it happens. That’s why I didn’t bring them up. Nothing is missing in DNS. It’s been fine since the early 1980s. The Web has gotten along just fine without special RR types thus far. Personally, I want HTTP as far from DNS as possible, but that’s a side discussion having to do with my long term outlook on the Internet. The people who think DNS is broken for $L7 use case generally don’t understand DNS the way it’s meant to be understood, and this comment chain is holding that rule fast. The gethostbyname, receive content approach was elected for HTTP because it was already common practice for pretty much every protocol in existence by the time TimBL and friends wrote httpd. There was nothing wrong with it at the time and there remains nothing wrong with it today. Unless you have an argument for why HTTP is special, which you don’t, because it isn’t (not even HTTP/3 running atop UDP demands specialness).

inopinatus 4y ago

Welcome back, rosndo.

ghoulish45 4y ago
- inopinatus 4y ago
  Someone who was banned, and briefly notorious for making wildly inaccurate personal judgements, piling on belittling invective in the woefully misguided belief it lend credence to their argument, seeking & sowing vehemence where none was present, and then creating additional accounts willy-nilly in hope of bypassing the inevitable. Which is to say, you were wrong in every pernicious assumption, and in a manner that thoroughly embodies the ghost of that individual, and consequently not worth anyone's energy debating with any further.
  - ghoulish45 4y ago
    - inopinatus 4y ago
      I leave it to other visitors to assess whether making disparaging statements about someone's emotional state, career, and competence, qualifies as "personal", and I have not described my own feelings, except my disappointment with one facet of the development of HTTP. I'd have expected someone claiming to be in the loop regarding DNS developments to bring up the more substantial topic of the SVCB and HTTPS records, which are the topic of an ongoing draft¹, and which may go some way towards ameliorating the issues. But no; apparently, low-grade sledging it is. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/10/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https..., for the curious.
      - ghoulish45 4y ago
        You don’t understand DNS. I don’t understand how to make sushi. Acknowledging those things is not a personal attack. Your major failure here is assuming that observations of your emotional state and your career experiences, and how those pertain to your mastery of the domain you’re speaking to (wildly incorrectly), are observations about you. Given that you also assumed someone who was banned here sought out an opportunity to shut you down, again, I have to return to an unhealthy ego driving your interactions. You are nobody. I am nobody. You suck at DNS. That’s fine. You can get better. I have no idea who you are and I’ll forget you when I close this tab. It’s really important that you understand that, because your comment style leads me to believe that you don’t. Teaching DNS about application protocols is a mistake every time it happens. That’s why I didn’t bring them up. Nothing is missing in DNS. It’s been fine since the early 1980s. The Web has gotten along just fine without special RR types thus far. Personally, I want HTTP as far from DNS as possible, but that’s a side discussion having to do with my long term outlook on the Internet. The people who think DNS is broken for $L7 use case generally don’t understand DNS the way it’s meant to be understood, and this comment chain is holding that rule fast. The gethostbyname, receive content approach was elected for HTTP because it was already common practice for pretty much every protocol in existence by the time TimBL and friends wrote httpd. There was nothing wrong with it at the time and there remains nothing wrong with it today. Unless you have an argument for why HTTP is special, which you don’t, because it isn’t (not even HTTP/3 running atop UDP demands specialness).