Re: E-mail survey. Just 2 questions.
John Demco <demco@cs.ubc.ca> Sun, 24 October 1993 21:07 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15874;
24 Oct 93 17:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15870;
24 Oct 93 17:07 EDT
Received: from mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11898;
24 Oct 93 17:07 EDT
Received: from cs.wisc.edu by mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu with SMTP (PP)
id <24175-0@mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu>; Sun, 24 Oct 1993 15:56:13 +0000
Received: from relay.cdnnet.ca by cs.wisc.edu; Sun, 24 Oct 93 15:56:05 -0500
Received: by relay.cdnnet.ca id AA04337 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4
for ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu); Sun, 24 Oct 1993 13:55:47 -0700
Date: 24 Oct 93 13:55 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John Demco <demco@cs.ubc.ca>
To: Claudio Allocchio <ALLOCCHIO@elettra.trieste.it>
Cc: ietf-osi-x400ops <ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <931023124443.20c0012d@elettra.trieste.it>
Message-Id: <25764*demco@cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: E-mail survey. Just 2 questions.
Claudio, I very much like the idea of making 1327 information available via the DNS. However, I wonder about the prospect of reserving a second-level subdomain under each country domain. I haven't been following the discussion closely, and I hope my comments--mainly in my role as CA domain registrar--are relevant. Reserving a subdomain such as X400.<country-code> may not fit into the plans each country has for its portion of the namespace. For example, in Canada the policy is that second-level domains under .CA are geopolitical and organizational; that is, second-level domain names are for provinces, territories, and national organizations. Of course policies can be changed, but the CA domain committee has had long discussions on why we think this is suitable for the long-term structuring of the namespace. If we were required to create a subdomain such as X400.CA in order to distribute mapping information, it would open the way for other special-interest groups to make claims on second-level domain names too, and it suggests that we don't actually have authority for the namespace. At the very least we would want to consider a more general structure, such as reserving a single second-level domain for standards-related information. If you haven't done so already, you might want to poll other country domain registrars on this matter. My immediate preference would be to have the 1327 information rooted at a single point inside in the DNS tree. For example, the GO-MHS community could acquire a second-level domain, say GO-MHS.INT. It would agree to delegate each country-specific subdomain (i.e. <country-code>.GO-MHS.INT) to whomever controls the primary nameserver for the country domain, with the results that: - the country domains are untouched, and - there would be no (additional) dispute over who has authority for the new <country-code>.GO-MHS.INT subdomains. Perhaps there is a more suitable attachment point than GO-MHS.INT. That would be fine with me. Regards, --John
- E-mail survey. Just 2 questions. Claudio Allocchio - +39 40 3758523
- Re: E-mail survey. Just 2 questions. Scott Bradner
- Re: E-mail survey. Just 2 questions. Einar Stefferud
- Re: E-mail survey. Just 2 questions. John Demco