- From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:22:13 +0100
- To: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@erols.com>
- cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
> > 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. More over I believe that DNS is OK for machine driven quick lookups, i.e. domain name to server address or server name. > protocol? The dreadful question IMHO seems to be where do you stop touching > DNS? Also, where to start and stop using directory services like LDAP? One of the main resons for using DNS is often said to be "it works, it is everywhere". But: - this is no nore exectly true: it "seems to be everywhere", but virtual hosting often makes the DNS server not under control of the domain name users - it works, but it is defintly not suited for an "information lookup service". IMHO the major disaster that DNS has ever made was the attempt to identify it with a trademark and distighushed names database. :-) - currently, and finally, due to a number of application seriously needing real directory services in order to work (GRID computing, mobile users authorisations - AAA, on-line phone books, X.509 Government issued certificates to citizens,...) the LDAP / Directory infrastructure is being deployed (often non hyerarchically, but the directory bridge concept seems to overcome the problem). This infrastructure is not at all in the same places and same hands than DNS servers, but it seems much more suitable to the needs expressed in your document. It is just a personal view, of course, but I woul prefer efforts being aimed to coordinate LDAP servers and define the relevant OIDs. :-) Claudio
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 04:23:11 UTC