W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

gethostbyname (was Re: (DNS) draft wording for W.G. review. )

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee@cybercash.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:48:52 -0500 (EST)
To: hallam@w3.org
Cc: Anawat Chankhunthod <chankhun@catarina.usc.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>, iip@tis.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960327144422.27612B-100000@cybercash.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/102
Note that for DNS security, the prefered interface to the gethostbyname 
functionality needs to change anyway to return an indicator as to whether 
the information has been authenticated, is from an insecure zone so it 
can't be authenticated, etc.  Perhaps while that additional return info 
in being added, adding return of the TTL so an applicaiton could cache 
the data and discard it properly would be reasonable...


On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 hallam@w3.org wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:08:11 -0500
> From: hallam@w3.org
> To: Anawat Chankhunthod <chankhun@catarina.usc.edu>
> Cc: hallam@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: (DNS) draft wording for W.G. review. 
> >- dns is a real performance pain
> >- gethostbyname call doesn't give you ttl information back
> >  So, if a ttl info is needed, you have to basicially integrate all 
> >  resolver code, talking udp to DNS server. Also server selection, timing out,
> >  exponential back off and all that. Basically, it is a integration of the 
> whole
> >  BIND into client/server.
> Gethostbyname is not rocket science. Its a few UDP calls and a bit of unpacking. 
> It should not be very hard. I wrote an interface in a couple of days. 
> Not using the Berkley interface is an obvious thing to do to improve performance 
> if you do not have threads. It is a bit sad that Netscape hangs while waiting to 
> do a dns lookup.
> I don't think we should restrict the spec on the basis of an inadequate API to 
> what is only a few lines of code. The complexity of BIND lies in the server not 
> in the client. Anwat's post pretty much describes what one has to do.
> Note that there are some platforms where it is difficult to interface directly 
> to the bind daemon because someone has tried some half baked optimisations. I 
> remember when we used to ship libwww with two versions of code, one for the 
> people using the O/S version and the other (and by far the more widely used) 
> which used a direct interface to dns. I don't know whether that is still an 
> issue.
> If people like I will post the code [just don't clutter the list with requests 
> or JG will be upset]. It may requires some tweaks since I use a garbage 
> collector and a few layers of macros, I think its only about 100 lines of code 
> though].
> 	Phill

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd     +1 508-287-4877(tel)     dee@cybercash.com
   318 Acton Street        +1 508-371-7148(fax)     dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA     +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com           http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 1996 11:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC