jom@belltec.UUCP (Jerry Merlaine) (05/02/89)
I would like to store and retrieve the public X.25 vendor (Datex-P/ Tymnet/Telenet etc.) X.25 address, or the dial-in SL/IP phone number, or the PTP dial-in number of a particular host via the Domain Name System. How can I do this via RFC1101? The info retrieved would need the X.25 address/phone# and some marker that says how to start up host numbers and routing. For example, POTS=415-555-1212,BOOTPSERV might mean that I dial the number, we both start SL/IP, and I expect it to be my BOOTP server. (Let's just ignore passwords for now...) How would I get this string? Thanks, Jerry O. Merlaine pacbell.com!belltec!jom
pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris) (05/03/89)
In general, the DNS philosophy for associating new forms of "host addresses" with hosts names is to enter new data (in the form of RRs) either with existing IN class information or in a new class. For example, the Chaos class was defined to use existing host names and a new address format in Chaos class RRs. For example, if we wanted to be able to look up phone numbers given host names, we might define them as being carried in a TXT RR, or define a new RR type of, say, PHONE, analogous to the A RR (these RRs would be stored at the host name). If we wanted to look up host names from a phone number, we would need something like the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree (Which we might be able to get along without, just as we get along without such a directory in the real world). From experience, there's a fair amount of work involved in standardizing the data (e.g. include area code?, international code?, extensions?), especially if you want an Internet standard. RFC 1101 doesn't specifically address (pardon me) this isssue, except to provide an solution for a different problem and general thoughts. RFC 1101 deals with the specific question of mapping between network names and IP network numbers (part of every IP address), and some general thoughs about mapping between arbitrary things (relevant to the reverse mapping, a la in-addr.arpa). Namedroppers is probably a better list for this, and I'm sure there is a lot of discussion about similar issues in its archives. paul
ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz (George Michaelson) (05/09/89)
From article <8905021943.AA21368@venera.isi.edu>, by pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris): > phone number, we would need something like the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree (Which > we might be able to get along without, just as we get along without such > a directory in the real world). From experience, there's a fair amount > of work involved in standardizing the data (e.g. include area code?, > international code?, extensions?), especially if you want an Internet > standard. Since the X.500 standards define encodings for many of the real-world data types one wants to store in a directory service, and the NS is offering such hugely aligned functionality, surely RFC's could be used to define mappings from the OSI DS object family into suitable Bind record types? Existing Bind definitions stay as-is. New ones where possible adopt forms "compatible" with X.500 defined objects. Lots of wins from this approach. Parallel Proposal: Is anyone going to define "authorised" mappings from POSIX or other standard unix data structures into ASN.1? There is a huge crossover period when we can all expect to have to pass data to and from Internet to OSI aligned systems. One global mapping across all RFC-compliant systems would aid things hugely here. The problem is ASN.1's richness allows more than one form for structured data. (analogous to choosing arrays or structs or linked lists) Rather than have two groups define divergent forms for one structure eg stuct passwd, there should be one RFC-defined mapping, and if possible procedure bindings to do en- and de-coding. I propose ISODE tools to be used, and an RFC to be used to collect common data structure mappings and their associated coders. -george -- ACSnet: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz Phone: +61 7 377 4079 Postal: George Michaelson, Prentice Computer Centre Queensland University, St Lucia, QLD 4067
pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris) (05/16/89)
>Since the X.500 standards define encodings for many of the real-world data >types one wants to store in a directory service, and the NS is offering such >hugely aligned functionality, surely RFC's could be used to define mappings >from the OSI DS object family into suitable Bind record types? >Existing Bind definitions stay as-is. New ones where possible adopt forms >"compatible" with X.500 defined objects. >Lots of wins from this approach. Right. I think the Internet should adopt/steal the parts of X.400, X.500 etc., etc. worth adopting/stealing now or in the future, in whole or in part. The rest is for further study/not worth stealing. paul