John, > John C Klensin wrote: > It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened > and given at least the capability of passing DNS names > and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension > to future identifiers. It seems to me that this does not buy us much if it is limited to FTP. Do you have in mind generalizing the mechanism of passing names instead of addresses to other apps, and at which layer would the address-to-name mapping occur? If I understood you correctly: The way it works today is: - You pass a name to the app. - The app looks up the name and maps an address to it. - The app opens a TCP connection to the address. Is what you are proposing: - You pass a name to the app. - The app opens a TCP connection to the name. - The TCP layer manages the mapping. -or- - You pass a name to the app. - The app opens a connects the session layer by name. - The session layer maps an address to the name and opens a TCP connection to the address. -or- Something else? Michel.