why the second level domain in each country..
Claudio Allocchio - +39 40 3758523 <ALLOCCHIO@elettra.trieste.it> Sun, 24 October 1993 23:22 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16460;
24 Oct 93 19:22 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16456;
24 Oct 93 19:22 EDT
Received: from mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14358;
24 Oct 93 19:22 EDT
Received: from cs.wisc.edu by mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu with SMTP (PP)
id <24511-0@mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu>; Sun, 24 Oct 1993 17:59:41 +0000
Received: from SYNW03.elettra.trieste.it by cs.wisc.edu;
Sun, 24 Oct 93 17:59:32 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 23:59:47 +0100 (WET)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Claudio Allocchio - +39 40 3758523 <ALLOCCHIO@elettra.trieste.it>
To: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu
Message-Id: <931024235947.20c0016d@elettra.trieste.it>
Subject: why the second level domain in each country..
Hallo John, the original version (v1) of the proposal was, in fact, proposing exactly what you're saying: x.400.arpa as a totally new root for the mapping informations (x400 --> rfc822). This proposal, however, was not accepted by a number of members of the IAB and by the namedroppers group; they (IAB) proposed instead the use of a reserved second level at each country level. This was to "ensure" the right collaboration in each country between the DNS authority and the rfc1327 mapping authorithy. More over they felt it was better (and not needed) to search again for a separate authority for the new tree at each national level. Your points are of course vaid, and in fact they were the basis of our first idea (it was called x400.arpa, but the spirit is the same). But also consider, and in this I agree fully with IAB people, that this is a new additional service to the Internet community, and not a special interest group willing to distribute their informations via DNS. It is not like putting telephone numbers of all canadian geologists in there, but it is much more close to filling in the correct reverse IP address resolution of all your machines to ensure a better security. In the mean time, also the collaboration between the DNS authority and the rfc1327 mapping authorityshould contribute to reduce the "holes" in e-mail routing showed by my last survey of a few days ago: some rfc822-like domains produced by rfc1327 mapping rules are NOT routable correctly in the Internet because they totally lack MX informations. It took me some time to come to the conclusion that IAB and namedroppers were right, I have to admit it, as it looked simpler just a new top rooted tree... anyhow... I'll start the survey you suggested, at least in the countries having already their mapping tables defined. There is, indeed, the provisional solution just to enable a start also in these countries (see my I-D draft summary I sent out a couple of weeks ago), but I think also these data can help, expecially in defining a transition plan. OK... se you in Houston, then! Claudio
- why the second level domain in each country.. Claudio Allocchio - +39 40 3758523