Re: DNS under o=Internet

A.Waugh@mel.dit.csiro.au Fri, 07 February 1992 03:08 UTC

Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07711; 6 Feb 92 22:08 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07707; 6 Feb 92 22:08 EST
Received: from shark.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.06360-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 7 Feb 1992 01:59:28 +0000
Received: from squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU by shark.mel.dit.csiro.au with SMTP id AA10223 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/DIT-1.3 for osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Feb 1992 13:00:18 +1100
Message-Id: <199202070200.AA10223@shark.mel.dit.csiro.au>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: ajw@mel.dit.csiro.au
Subject: Re: DNS under o=Internet
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 92 03:42:13 PST." <8178.697376533@nma.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1992 13:00:17 +1100
From: A.Waugh@mel.dit.csiro.au

Date: Thu, 06 Feb 92 03:42:13 PST
Message-Id: <8178.697376533@nma.com>
Sender: stef@nma.com

Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com> wrote:
> Look at the way NSAP values are assigned (registered) and how they are
> used.  The values are assigned under various OID tree arcs, like the
> ICD (which registers International Organizations).  Other NSAP values
> come from registration of organizational OIDs under countries, as with
> ANSI in c=US, under {joint-iso-ccitt(2) country (16) US(840) }.  When
> used in a real NSAP, none of the two top level OID values appear,
> because the NSAP "scheme" assigns specific prefixes to each of several
> branches of the OID tree, and these prefixes are what shows up in the
> "real NSAP which goes down the wire in a PDU".

I had a really hard time understanding this paragraph; mainly
because you appear to be confusing OIDs and NSAPs. They are quite
separate beasties. They do, however, delegate naming authority in
similar ways.

In both OIDs and NSAPs, one of groups of naming authorities CCITT/ISO 
have delegated naming rights to are the ISO member bodies in
each country (represented by the three digit country codes in
ISO 3166). However, there is no implied mapping between the OIDs
allocated by that ISO member body and the NSAPs allocated by the
same member body.

Even if the member body wished to implement such a mapping for the
OIDs and NSAPs it allocated, it would be an extremely difficult task.
OIDs can be extended indefinitely while NSAPs are strictly limited in
length. The range of numbers which can be allocated within an NSAP is
even more limited by standards such as the IS-IS standard.

Further, there are many other naming authorities which ISO and CCITT
have authorised to allocate NSAPs and OIDs. NSAPs can be allocated
on the basis of Telex numbers, for example, but OIDs cannot.

The allocation of OIDs and NSAPs in any country is likely to be handled
under different plans. In Australia, for example, the next portion
of the OID for a company is the Australian Company Number. (Note;
the SAA, in this case, is acting as a listing authority, not a
registration authority.) With NSAPs the SAA are simply keeping a
register of companies who have received authority for a portion of
the NSAP space, so the SAA are acting as an registration authority.


> That is, the US Congress does not ask ANSI for permission to name a
> new state, or a new "What's His Name National Laboratory" (WHNNL).  If
> and when ANSI does attempt to assert authority in this name space, I
> plan to get a good seat to watch the spectacle as the US Congress
> tells ANSI what to do with their ISO authority.

It is interesting that the initial SAA (Standards Association of
Australia) naming draft proposed that the SAA would act as a
registration authority for X.500. Basically, an organisation would
go to SAA and say "here is my name, register me in Australia."
It was quickly realised that the legal and administrative implications
of such an approach were horrific. The SAA would have had to
advertise the application to allow other organisations, who considered
they had a right to the proposed name, time to challange the
proposed registration. A disputes handling procedure would have
needed to be set up which, given the money already invested in names,
would have probably included lawyers. Uggh.

Rolf Exner then suggested the approach now taken; which is basically
that of the NADF. There is an enormous infrastructure already set
up for assigning names and resolving disputes. We let this handle
the registration. Directory providers, such as the AARNet
Directory Pilot, simply act as a listing authority. I would suggest
that this is the only realistic approach for naming at a NATIONAL
level in a GENERAL PURPOSE directory.

Note the qualifiers: 'national' and 'general purpose'. I expect
that X.500 technology will be used to construct a large number of
directory systems with a great variety of scope and purpose.
Not all of these directory systems will be linked into the global
X.500 directory. Different naming strategies will be appropriate
in these different directories. In some the names might be relatively
arcane strings which are allocated by the directory provider.

andrew waugh