At 6:24 AM 9/13/93 -0400, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
It is incorrect to claim that the "pager+###(_at_)faxhost" approach cannot
easily be made to scale. However, it is (I believe) correct to claim
that it cannot be made to be SEPARATELY ADMINISTERED (e.g. by
competitive paging services) without the creation of considerable new
mechanism. The DNS approach allows scaling and independent
administration without any new mechanism. Now, if AT&T had a monopoly
on paging services, this wouldn't matter...
I do not understand this comment. It would seem to me that the situation
is really the reverse:
pager+####(_at_)page(_dot_)region(_dot_)att(_dot_)com
pager+####(_at_)beeper(_dot_)region(_dot_)mci(_dot_)com
pager+####(_at_)pager(_dot_)region(_dot_)sprint(_dot_)com
Or whatever. Here, the sender could explicitly specify what service to use.
I don't see how this works if you use the phone number as a name in the
DNS. Wouldn't choosing a different carrier require changes to the DNS? Or
do you intend separate domains for each paging service? Or did I
completely misunderstand this whole thing?
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Inc.