Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                   Mark KrilanovichRFC # 623                                                           UCSBNIC # 22004                                            February 22, 1974Reference: RFC #606, 608                 Comments on On-Line Host Name Service    Peter Deutsch in RFC #606 pointed out the desirability of having asingle host maintain a data base containing official host names and hostaddresses, as well as other information of secondary importance.  MikeKudlick in RFC #608 agreed with the concept, and proposed that the NICwould implement Peter's ideas.  I would like to add my voice to those insupport of such a service, and express a few ideas for its modification.    The notion of having a single host maintain this data base clearlyhas the weakness that anyone wishing to obtain a copy of the data may befaced with the situation that the serving host is not available when thedata is desired.  It is true that each host could save a copy of themost recently obtained data, such that whenever a current copy cannot beobtained, at least a very recent copy is available.  This is not aparticularly attractive idea, since it requires a non-trivial amount ofbother on the part of everyone.  Therefore, I propose that the NICmaintain the master data base, and one other host be responsible formaintaining a secondary copy, which is to be updated to be equal to theNIC'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 thatfails, try the secondary host, thus much reducing the probability thatthe data cannot be obtained, while requiring additional software to bewritten at only one additional host.  Further, I volunteer UCSB to bethat secondary host.    The proposal currently underway calls for the host names data baseto have the format of ASCII file.RFC 606 makes the point, with which Icompletely agree, that this data base should be formatted in an easilymachine-readable form.  To this end, I propose that the data base beretrievable in binary form rather than ASCII.  Using this concept, forexample, <host-address> would be a one-byte (eight-bit) binary number,<host-name> would be a one-byte length field followed by that many ASCIIcharacters, and the possible <attribute-values>'s for the STATUS<attribute-name> would be one-byte binary numbers.  This modificationwould clearly make the data base unintelligible to a human user, and,just as clearly, much more easily interpreted by a program.RFC 608 states that the data base will be maintained as a file andretrievable through FTP.  I question the wisdom of basing such a simpleprocess as keeping a host table up to date on such a complex protocol asKrilanovich                                                     [Page 1]

RFC 623          Comments on On-Line Host Name Service     February 1974FTP.  Therefore I propose that the data base be available via a programrunning under its own socket at the NIC and at the secondary host.  Thisalso avoids the necessity for the accessing program to know the loginparameters for the guest account at the serving host, which in factmight not be the same at the two hosts.  Again, the motivation is tomake things easy for accessing programs.    Anyone with comments about any of the above is encouraged to makethem known.       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]       [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with    ]       [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp.            10/99 ]Krilanovich                                                     [Page 2]