Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!Stef
From: Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: Proposal for use of DNS to store RFC 987, etc mappings
Message-ID: <154.649052545@nma.com>
Date: 27 Jul 90 04:22:25 GMT
References: <9007270211.AA02319@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28

Paul and Jon (One Msg to reply to you both) --

We have to recognize that we cannot build a system that requires full
network connectivity for every gateway, cause we know full well that
there will always be some significant set of hosts that will not have
full network connectivity, hence we must provide for ways to provide the
appropriate tables for the non-fully-network-connected hosts.  

Full Stop!  

Now that we have settled that point, what can or should we do to live
with reality and keep our sanity too?  

One thing is to invent a table form of the information in the DNS that
will carry its functionality (remember the MX problem that cannot be
represented in HOSTS.TXT because HOSTS.TXT is not extensible).  What is
the problem with defining a table representation that has record types,
ala DNS, so we can have one-for-one representation of the same
information, and be as extensible in the tables as in the DNS?  

And, another thing to do is define a mapping of DNS information in an
appropriate X.500 schema, which must likewise be just as extensible and
facilitate one-for-one mapping of the same information in X.500 forms.  

Now, having said these relatively simple things, what am I missing here?

What is wrong with my picture?  (Aside from the fact that a little work
must be done?)  Best...\Stef;-)