Re: DNS under o=Internet

valdis@vttcf.cc.vt.edu Tue, 04 February 1992 19:43 UTC

Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18038; 4 Feb 92 14:43 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18034; 4 Feb 92 14:43 EST
Received: from vttcf.CC.VT.EDU by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.05510-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 4 Feb 1992 18:53:06 +0000
Received: from LOCALHOST.vt.edu by vttcf.cc.vt.edu with SMTP (PP) id <127126-0@vttcf.cc.vt.edu>; Tue, 4 Feb 1992 13:53:23 +0000
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: DNS under o=Internet
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 92 17:16:02 GMT." <199202041616.AA24525@mitsou.inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 13:53:20 -0500
From: valdis@vttcf.cc.vt.edu
Message-ID: <9202041443.aa18034@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>

> I support Wengyik on this. Registering the Internet Domain Name server under
> "O=Internet" is much cleaner than messing with the root. It carves a neat
> name space for Internet domains, and avoids conflicts with national
> authorities. 

Add my vote to parking the DNS stuff under O=Internet - with the
proviso that we get at least a gentleman's agreement with the people
who control the root DNS servers as to the registration issues.  As
Wngyik says: "My solution is to avoid the problem altogether by viewing
the DIT as a listing hierarchy :-)."  The problem is that *somebody*
has to take responsibility for *registration*, as otherwise we'll be
listing anything and everything, and after a while, it will be so
inconsistent and out of touch with reality that we'll be looking at
proposals to move the tree to a new arc called "O=Horse-manure" ;)

A second issue to consider is the set of second-level domains -
a DNS tree in the X.500 directory that has O=Internet@domain=EDU
will be quite useless if there are only 5 entries under it - do
we wish to populate the tree with *all* domains, even if they are
NOT participating in the current pilots?

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Engineer
				Virginia Tech