On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:

> 
> its use as a directory is arbitrary, people use sql normalised databases
> for object oriented systems. whether it was itended for such use, no in both
> cases or can be put to ineficient use in both cases is a moot point. the
> focus should not be on the technical tidyness of concepts but on the utility 
> to the end user. be that shoveling objects into relational
> databases or expecting book.com to find a bookshop. directory efficiency
> of dns is is no excuse to prevent generic names. or its use to some


I'm in your corner here Vic. Its no good people saying 
DNS is not a directory at nausem ... and the article
referenced previously only confirms that it *is* being used
as a directory and (from my reading) the only argument
against its use as a directory is that it wasn't designed
for that and 2) there are better ways of doing this. 

On those points we probably all agree but its like the PC,
once IBM let it loose there was no stopping it despite the
various architecures IBM put up as superior (and they were)!

From the draft:

"It has been difficult to get directory systems deployed in
significant ways in the Internet infrastructure, partially
because we have a surplus of options."

And one of them is the DNS ......

regards doug


-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Robb
Clarity Software Pty Ltd      http://clarity.com.au
GPO Box 763                   Phone: 0403 02 2527
Nedlands 6909                 Fax:   (618) 93867564
Australia                     email: doug§clarity.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------