Browse Prior Art Database

Comments on on-line host name service (RFC0623)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003696D
Original Publication Date: 1974-Feb-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 2 page(s) / 3K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

M. Krilanovich: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC0623: DOI

Abstract

See also RFCs 627, 625, 608 and 606.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 56% of the total text.

Network Working Group Mark Krilanovich RFC # 623 UCSB NIC # 22004 February 22, 1974 Reference: RFC #606, 608

Comments on On-Line Host Name Service

Peter Deutsch in RFC #606 pointed out the desirability of having a single host maintain a data base containing official host names and host addresses, as well as other information of secondary importance. Mike Kudlick in RFC #608 agreed with the concept, and proposed that the NIC would implement Peter’s ideas. I would like to add my voice to those in support of such a service, and express a few ideas for its modification.

The notion of having a single host maintain this data base clearly has the weakness that anyone wishing to obtain a copy of the data may be faced with the situation that the serving host is not available when the data is desired. It is true that each host could save a copy of the most recently obtained data, such that whenever a current copy cannot be obtained, at least a very recent copy is available. This is not a particularly attractive idea, since it requires a non-trivial amount of bother on the part of everyone. Therefore, I propose that the NIC maintain the master data base, and one other host be responsible for maintaining a secondary copy, which is to be updated to be equal to the NIC’s at periodic and often intervals, such as once a day. This way, anyone wishing to obtain the data can first try the NIC, and if that fails, try the secondary host, thus much reducing the probability that the data cannot be obtained, while requiring additional software to be written at only one additional host. Further, I volunteer UCSB to be that secondary host.

The proposal currently underway calls for the host names data base to have the format of ASCII file. RFC 606 makes the point, with which I completely agree, that this data base should be formatted in an easily machine-readable form. To this...

Processing...
Loading...