Re: [DotGNU]Add Dynamic DNS to DotGNU

[Jonathan P Springer]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:25:28PM +0100, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Friday 03 May 2002 16:52, Jonathan P Springer wrote:
 
> Okay, I'm with you on this.  I've assumed that the location of the service 
> would be known through some sort of discovery lookup.  And now I think about 
> it, it does hold true that more than one agent could register a service with 
> the same name.  How do we stop this?
> 

For non-malicious cases, I think Java has the right idea.  Use
registered domain names as the root of the service name, then leave it
to the owner of the domain name to manage the rest.

In the case of the more malicious "duplicate registration,"
I'm noodling over all sorts of possibilities.  Much of this comes back
to the "trust" discussions we had earlier.  Some sort of digital
signature game?  "I know this is the service I want because when I
combine the profile of the executable with a signed profile from Party
X, whom I trust, I get a reliable answer."  I can come up with ways to
beat everything I've thought of so far.  Suggestions, anyone?

> > The key is that the physical location of the server never enters into
> > the logical name of the service.
> 
> Is that absolute, or a goal that we'd like to achieve?  I still belive at 
> this stage that there should be some sort of service resolution service.  In 
> fact there has to be one really, else (as in your example) server1 would not 
> know that server3 has the service it requires.
> 

Two points:  

1) I think using registered domain names as the base of the
service name is not a bad idea; however, we can't assume that the
service is physically located on a server in that domain.  I find Java's
namespace solution to be quite elegant, once one understands what's
happening.

2) Given that a service can be uniquely identified and authenticated, I
see no reason why a P2P-like web for service resolution is not viable.
Finding "Jonathan's Service" is no more or less complicated than finding
"jlo_nude.avi" in gnutella.  Why centralize and create a point of
breakage?

> Got me thinking before the weekend! Damn!
> Chris
> 

Hey, I should be doing the thinking I'm paid for right now.  This is
hobby.

-js

> -- 
> Chris Smith
>   Technical Architect - netFluid Technology Limited.
>   "Internet Technologies, Distributed Systems and Tuxedo Consultancy"
>   E: address@hidden  W: http://www.nfluid.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

-- 
-Jonathan P Springer <address@hidden>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A standard is an arbitrary solution to a recurring problem." - Joe Hazen