home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Netork Working Group L. Peter Deutsch
- Request For Comments: 606 PARC-MAXC
- December 1973
-
- Host Names On-line
-
- Now that we finally have an official list of host names, it seems
- about time to put an end to the absurd situation where each site
- on the network must maintain a different, generally out-of-date,
- host list for the use of its own operating system or user
- programs.
-
- For example, each of the TENEX sites to which I have access
- ( SRI-ARC, BBN-TENEX, USC-ISI, and PARC-MAXC) has a slightly
- different mapping between host names and host addresses: none
- is complete, and I believe each one differs in some way from
- the official List.
-
- Since the NIC has responsibility for maintaining the official
- list, lt seems appropriate for them to maintain an on-line file,
- accessible to anyone, which Lists names and host addresses ( and
- certain other information which I will suggest in a moment) in an
- easily machine-readable form.
-
- This rules out, in my opinion, providing this information only
- in the form of an NLS structured file, since there are no
- facilities for accessing such files from the network and since
- many sites would not want to accommodate themselves to this
- structure even if there were.
-
- The file I have in mind would be devoted principally to that
- information needed by programs, as opposed to people, since the ;
- former want their information in compact, easily parsed form,
- whereas the latter appreciate more verbose expression and more
- sophisticated facilities for browsing or querying. Therefore, I
- propose that the following information be included in such a file:
-
- Of course, the official name and host address for each host.
- This would be the primary content of each entry.
-
- Some information about the options of the various protocols
- supported by the host, including ( for FTP ) the preferred byte
- size and ( for TELNET) the preferred duplex mode. The former
- can have an enormous effect on the efficiency of file
- transfers. Since the new TELNET allows negotiation of options,
- the list need not be complete or accurate.
-
- The function o f the host vis-a-vis the network ( user, server,
- TIP, etc.). This may aid NCPs in deciding whether to poll the
- host or give useful information for statistical purposes ( e.g.
- I would like to make my NCP collect statistics on traffic with
- TIPs vs. other hosts).
- Since the file will be generated centrally by a single program,
- but used widely by a variety of programs, it follows that its
- format should be organized for ease of interrogation at the
- expense of ease of construction. I feel a reasonable way to
- achieve this is to store it as an ASCII text file with the logical
- structure of a "property list".
- -1-
-
- In other words, aside from the two basic facts in each entry
- ( name and address), the information will be expressed in the
- form of <attribute, value> pairs rather than having the
- attribute be recognized by format, position, etc.
-
- l don't believe it matters a great deal exactly how this file is
- formatted, so I will make a suggestion in the hope that no one
- cares enough to protest it. ( This has never worked before in the
- history of the network, but it' s still worth a try ) The
- following is the proposed syntax of the file.
-
- <host-name-file> ::= <entry> | <host-name-file> <entry>
-
- <entry> ::= <data-part> <end-of-line>
-
- Note that this produces a blank line after the <data-part>.
- <data-part> ::= <basic-part> | <data-part> <attribute-item>
- <basic-part> ::= <host-name> , <host-address> <end-of-line>
- <attribute-item> ::= <attribute-name> = <attribute-value>
- <end-of-line>
- This leaves the following terms undefined:
- <end-of-line>: I don't know what end-of-line indication is in
- favor in the network community these days. I personally favor
- carriage-return followed by line-feed. TENEX tends to use the
- single character octal 37, which is totally non-standard and
- inappropriate for this application.
-
- <host-name>: an official host name as specified in the recent
- RFC 597 (NIC 20826) by NJN and JAKE. It is my understanding
- that these names are restricted to letters, digits, hyphens,
- and parentheses ( including the network name).
-
- <host-address>: a decimal host address, relative to its own
- network ( I would assume). There has been no general discussion
- of multi-network addressing -- although there is apparently an
- unpublicized Internetworking Protocol experiment in progress --
- and some other convention may be more desirable.
- <attribute-name>: an arbitrary name containing only letters,
- digits, and hyphens. We will have to agree on some names like
- BEST-FTP-BYTE-SIZE (?), but I am willing to let the NIC pick
- them.
-
- <attribute-value>: an arbitrary string not containing
- <end--of-line>, whose interpretation depends in general on the
- attribute. For example, there might be an attribute SERVERS
- whose value was a list of the servers customarily run by the
- site.
-
- The following are some specific attributes that I think would be
- worthwhile:
-
- NICKNAMES -- value is a list of acceptable nicknames for the
- host. Any system that provides name-to-address translation is
- encouraged ( although of course not required) to accept these
- names as alternatives to the official host name.
-
- -2-
-
- FTP-BYTE-SIZES -- value is a list of the byte sizes supported
- by the FTP server. The first byte size is the one which leads
- to the least computational overhead ( e.g. 36 for PDP-1O's, 32
- for 36O's).
-
- ECHOING -- value is L or R depending on whether the host
- expects the terminal to echo ( Remote) or expects to do its own
- echoing (Local).
-
- Note that no attribute is actually required and that the values
- under a given attribute need not be complete. In other words,
- this list is meant not to replace option negotiation,
- word-of-mouth, or any other means bo which one host discovers
- the properties of another, but merely to provide an alternate
- source of information which can be accessed in a simple and
- uniform way.
-
- I realize that there is a time-honored pitfall associated with
- suggestions such as the present one: it represents a specific
- solution to a specific problem, and as such may not be compatible
- with or form a reasonable basis for more general solutions to more
- general problems. However, ( 1) this particular problem has been
- irking me and others I have spoken to for well over a year, and it
- is really absurd that it should have gone unsolved this Long; (2)
- no one seems particularly interested in solving any more general
- problem.
-
- Except the Datacomputer: PLEASE, if there is an easy way to
- accomplish the same function through the Datacomputer, someone
- write un RFC specifying it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -3-