At 14:54 +0800 22/11/00, Doug Robb wrote:

>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.

and

At 17:54 +1100 22/11/00, Vic Cinc wrote the almost unintelligible:

>change. if people
>want to guess that book.com is a bookshop good luck to them. didnt
>hurt anybody,
>didnt it?


The point is that the DNS fails miserably as a directory service.

If the DNS is being used as a directory (and I can't imagine how it 
could be, since it is so shockingly bad at this task) the only reason 
would be that there is nothing else to use.

There is no consistent mapping of an entity name to a domain name, 
pretty much guaranteeing that you are not going to be able to find 
the entity you want to find simply by keying in guesses.

By keying in guesses you are just as likely to find a competitor to 
the entity you are actually looking for before you find the actual 
entity.

As a result, the only people pushing the use of the DNS as a 
directory are stake holders -- registry operators who stand to make 
fat profits out of the DNS explosion.

How many companies do you know of that would favour a directory 
service that pretty much ensures they are impossible to find and in 
fact ensures people trying to find the business are likely to find a 
competitor first?

  ...R.

p.s. Anybody got a brick wall handy? My head needs a massage!