# Re: Single protocol for UR*?

Rob Raisch, The Internet Company (raisch@internet.com)
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 18:46:27 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Data elements and other jazz"
- Previous message: Fred Swartz: "DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 18:46:27 -0700 (PDT)

    From: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>

    Subject: Re: Single protocol for UR*?

    To: Mitra <mitra@path.net>

    In-Reply-To: <9310291338.aa10437@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.03.9310291826.B9391-b100000@hmmm.internet.com>

For those, like myself, who are unix enabled:

$ nslookup
> server ns.internet.com
> set type=ANY
> document.internet.urn

Server: ns.internet.com
Address: 192.215.1.51

document.internet.urn CPU = raisch.internet.com
OS = ftp://internet.com/pub/metainfo/document.

document.internet.urn preference = 10,
mail exchanger =
ftp://ftp.internet.com/pub/document

document.internet.urn preference = 50,
mail exchanger =
gopher://gopher.internet.com/0/pub/document

document.internet.urn preference = 10,
mail exchanger =
http://host3.internet.com/pub/document

(Reformatted for ease of use)

The CPU field of the HINFO record is the mail address of the admin for the
URN.

The OS field of the HINFO record is the location (URL) of the meta-information
IANA template.

The MX records are preference = some value which is a designation of the
size of the server, and mail exchanger = the actual retrievable URL of the
object.

Please note: These files do not exist. This is an example.

I would suggest that this is a very workable scenerio, and that named be run
on another port to be scalable and not dependant on the existing DNS
heirarchy.

Just a thought.

</rr>

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Data elements and other jazz"
- Previous message: Fred Swartz: "DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"