Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!otc!metro!bunyip!ggm@bunyip.cc.uq.OZ
From: ggm@bunyip.cc.uq.OZ (George Michaelson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Naive questions about subnets & domains
Message-ID: <2030@bunyip.cc.uq.OZ>
Date: 24 Aug 89 06:13:51 GMT
References: <8908222057.AA06211@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@bunyip.cc.uq.OZ
Lines: 29

From article <8908222057.AA06211@venera.isi.edu>, by pvm@ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris):
> 
> Sooner or later, there are problems creating one hierarchy that follows
> two different criteria.  The DNS doesn't show this problem much because
> the organizational criteria and tree-delegation criteria are virtually
> identical.  X.400 ORname allocation schemes are debated so much because
> the designers are trying to serve multiple masters.

Also, where the DNS (or any other naming scheme) is open to interpretation in 
multiple ways, it is possible for there to be problems within that naming
community. 

Also Also, where two or more initially disjoint (inter)nets join together,
naming conflict is to be expected. 

Actually, you can probably collapse them two also's into one. 

Question: 
	if the DNS authors had a second stab, would they 
	"put an "e" on the end of creat()" so to speak and make 
	the edu/org/gov domains lie within the CCITT preferred 
	naming model? 

	Would they be under "pressure" to do so?

	-George
ACSnet: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz                    Phone: +61 7 377 4079
Postal: George Michaelson, Prentice Computer Centre
          Queensland University, St Lucia, QLD 4067