[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bill de hÓra wrote:
>>From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
>>
>>Many people feel otherwise. They feel that the centralization
>>degrades
>>security because it erects a single point to attack and introduces a
>>third-party into transactions that would otherwise only involve two.
>>
>>They also feel that DNS is bad because it is a *centralized*
>>directory:
>
> One could make much the same point about Google.
Google's function is provided (with various levels of QOS) by various
companies that do not cooperate or even communicate. If Google goes
down, I can still get useful results:
* http://www.altavista.com/sites/search/web?q=Propylon&avkw=qtrp&kl=XX
Google's death would be an annoyance but it wouldn't bring anything
crashing to a halt the way that the death of DNS would. Similarly,
because Yahoo (like Google) is designed to do nothing more than
introduce, it could go down and we could use ODP-based services instead.
I'm not saying DNS is a bad thing. It is probably necessary because the
alternatives[1] are, IMHO, quite severe and invasive. But DNS is not a
good model for a web services introduction service. DNS solves a totally
different problem.
Paul Prescod
[1]http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/pnml.html
|
