Re: X.500, Naming and the Internet

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

>.. So, do I get a prize for what must be one of the longest messages
>ever sent to osi-ds?? :-) :-)
>
>
>Wengyik

Wengyik,

You did send a long message, but I think that your distinction between
"registration" and "listing" is very valid. In fact, I have already pointed
this distinction out myself in previous messages, as well as the need to
register "O=Internet" in order to carve ourself a clean name space out of
the "national registry" mess. And the idea to root the DNS, or rather its
projection in the DIT, right under "O=Internet", is certainly a good thing.

I would remark however that you have not pushed your reasoning to the
extreme: you seem to assume that the only thing you need for a name is
"legal registration", it order to guarantee its uniqueness. I have an
additional request, and would formulate it this way:

1) a name is a key in a "global" naming data base, used for key to address
mappings. This is what is commonly described as the "name server" function.

2) "listing" is a service that allow users to retrieve this unique data base
key and possibly other attributes out of a collection of entries.

The model for (1) is clearly the DNS: it is fast, small, single purpose.
Mapping this service for X.500 would be a "bullet fast read" operation,
provided X.500 service is speeded up my an order of magintude. We should
start to use caching, for one thing. The keys should be short because they
are used in many places; they should be hierarchic in order to facilitate
navigation; being mnemonic would help, but they dont have to be meaningful.
In fact, a numeric hierarchy, similar to the OID hierarchy, would do quite
well -- or why not just reuse the DNS allocated names!

X.500 tries to solve (2) by organizing a hierarchy of DSA, and Steve tries
to save the world by using the UFN algorithms to browse this hierarchy. But
there is absolutely no reason why "listing" should be constrained to a
hierarchy; one could imagine for example:

* a listing of the 4526 organization which have registered an Internet
network,

* a listing of all the world airlines,

* a listing of all IETF members,

* a listing of US companies provided by ATT,

* a competitive listing of American and European companies better kept up to
date by PSI,

* and many others..

The entries in these listing do not have to be organized in hierarchies;
they could for example be registered in a flat space directly under the
"data base name". Using an SQL or X.500 search would return a set of
responses, which can include the "registered names" of the selected entries.

Indeed, some details will have to be ironed out, e.g. a standard way to
represent the "registered names" by using something similar to the "Alias"
attribute, and also a way to provide "additional information", e.g. the
address of a DSA serving a name. But I believe that splitting apart
"registration" and "listing" is a very good idea.

Christian Huitema