# Re: Question for DNS propronents?

Michael Mealling (Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu)
Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:52:18 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- In reply to: roxanab@attmail.com: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- Next in thread: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"

    From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Message-Id: <199506142152.RAA26157@oit.gatech.edu>

    Subject: Re: Question for DNS propronents?

    To: roxanab@attmail.com

    Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:52:18 -0400 (EDT)

    In-Reply-To: <9506142124.AA27253@hoccson.ho.att.com> from "roxanab@attmail.com" at Jun 14, 95 03:27:29 pm

roxanab@attmail.com said this:
> At 01:34 PM 6/14/95 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
> >How do you deal with information spaces and server hierarchies that
> >don't correspond to actual DNS name/server hierarchies?
>
> I don't know what the current status of the agenda is (do we still only
> have one session?), but given the number of different proposals on URNs
> and the perception that the group needs to concentrate its efforts more,
> it does not seem unreasonable to me to spend most of the session focusing
> on the various URN proposals and a plan for making some sort of progress
> in this area.

This was something I was thinking about in Danvers. We seem to have to
much on our plate AND no focus. I'm all for splitting the URI group
into two groups: one for URNs and one for URCs. One just points to the
other.....

> Personally, I do not think we will come up with a single solution that
> combines all the proposals and I think even if we did, such a solution would
> probably be worse than any one of the given proposals. So what I would
> suggest is that perhaps instead of trying to focus on converging the
> solutions maybe we focus on interoperability for now (even if it's
> only among some of the proposals and not all) at the syntax and protocol
> level. Based on my reading of the proposals I think this doable. What do
> other folks (especially those with proposals) think about this?

I've started thinking about this and my method of dealing with it is
for DNS to return the scheme used for final resolution when dealing
with a hierarchical name system. For example, I'm using OIDs and whois.
I look up 1.3.6.1.4.636 and get back a new Resource Record that looks like
this:

<domain> IN <ttl> URN <produced_on_host> <mbox> (
<preference> ;preference like MX records
<Authority_dname> ;actual host to contact
<port> ;port to contact server on
<Signature> ;Signature of this record
<Scheme> ) ;final scheme used to resolve URN

I then use the scheme specified to do any final lookups. In the case
of non-hierarchical naming schemes we just have to know how that particular
scheme handles it.

-MM

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.
    <BR>
    <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">Michael Mealling</A>

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- In reply to: roxanab@attmail.com: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- Next in thread: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"