From: stripes@uunet.uu.net (Josh Osborne)
Message-Id: <9312160130.AA24500@rodan.UU.NET>
Subject: Re: DNS lookups for URLs (was: URN functionality from URLs)
To: uri@bunyip.com
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 20:30:36 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199312152332.SAA07280@wilma.cs.utk.edu> from "Keith Moore" at Dec 15, 93 06:32:44 pm
[...]
>> Josh Osborne <stripes@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>> > I think it's more important that the records be used then having BIND
>> > support them instantly. It's not that hard to get a new record type into
>> > BIND, it's harder to get them used. Focus on making the records useable,
>> > make a sample set of patches. Don't just wack text records unless it's
>> _really_ a clean fit.
>
>It's going to be very hard to get enough versions of BIND upgraded to
>make the new records useful. I expect it would take several years
>for this to happen. How many users would install mosaic if they had
>to upgrade their BIND implementation to make it work?
Moot point. They don't need to upgrad their BIND. People running URN->URL
server need to update their BIND. That's a fairly big diffrence.
>TXT records are fine w/ me as long as we don't try to overload DNS itself to
>do the URN->whatever lookup. But A or CNAME records would probably work
>just fine as well.
I'm not opposed to TXT records _if_ they seem to be a decent fit to
the problem. Overloading the meaning of A and CNAME records is not a
good idea 'tho.