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
- DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: DNS under o=Internet William Manning
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Kenneth Carlberg
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Christian Huitema
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Tim Howes
- Re: DNS under o=Internet valdis
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Al Grimstad
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Mark Prior
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Sylvain Langlois
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Christian Huitema
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Christian Huitema
- Re: DNS under o=Internet William Manning
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Sylvain Langlois
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Sylvain Langlois
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Einar Stefferud
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Einar Stefferud
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Christian Huitema
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet A.Waugh
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Sylvain Langlois
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Einar Stefferud
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Einar Stefferud
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Einar Stefferud
- Re: DNS under o=Internet A.Waugh
- Re: DNS under o=Internet George Michaelson
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet George Michaelson
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet yeongw
- Re: DNS under o=Internet Steve Hardcastle-Kille