W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Request for comments

From: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:25:17 -0500
Message-ID: <3BF53DED.2361C817@erols.com>
To: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
CC: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Claudio Allocchio wrote:

> > > the question is not whether this will work, but whether it's better to
> > > put stuff in DNS or to vector it to a separate lookup service.
> ... this is a very old discussion, and in general the opinion was DNS
> works well, but it is also the fundamental glue between addresses and
> services, names etc, thus overloading it with new stuff IS WRONG.

The phrases "putting stuff in DNS" and "overloading DNS" deserve another look. It
seems that the "U" flag in NAPTR RR is being questioned in contrast with the "S"
and "A" flags. If yes, then does ENUM as proposed in RFC 2916 need
standardization? The use of the "U" flag in NAPTR RR for ENUM seems reasonable as
it starts with a derived domain name and transforms it to another network
resource identifier and not the data within it. However, this solution is limited
by lack of access control if an application needs so.

We probably need a clearer definition of a lookup framework specifying the roles
of various protocols like DNS, LDAP, CNRP, RESCAP, etc(?) in the various layers
of the framework for resolution discovery and resolution. And, when and if
violation of these layers is ok. IMHO, this will greatly help alleviate the

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 11:19:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC