Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge
From: coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Proper use(s) of the Usenet maps
Summary: Are the maps UUCP? Usenet? Where is the line?
Keywords: maps,uucp,usenet,purpose
Message-ID: <1989Sep18.150933.3143@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 89 15:09:33 GMT
Sender: news@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Lines: 65

After some argument, it appears that the map entry for brutus
(brutus.cs.uiuc.edu) will not be carried in the Usenet maps, at least
for now. The argument given is that, since brutus is currently an
nntp-only site, that there is no point in carrying brutus in the maps,
since they give pathalias data and we don't need any of that.

On the other hand, there is already at least one NNTP-only site in the
maps (rpi.edu, u.usa.ny.3). There may be more. There seems to be some
value seen by the sites involved in having a listing in the maps, even
if no UUCP information needs to be carried.

Here are the advantages I see in carrying all Usenet sites in the maps
who wish to submit an entry:

	1) The list of contacts is maintained. One of my primary uses
	of the maps is to get contact data when sending to a given
	site.

	2) News propagation can be computed. With proper use of the #U
	field, it's much easier to discover where the news links are.

	3) The paper maps showing traffic flow, sites, and connectivity.
	Without an entry in the maps there's no place to find location
	or even existance for some sites. My location is obvious
	(hopefully), since there are a couple other sites in the same
	building, but for some locations it may not be obvious at all.

	4) Census information. The maps provide an easy way of getting
	a count of sites on the net, the equipment types involved,
	etc.

	5) Announcements of connection availability. Several sites list
	'we are willing to take <xxx> type connections' or 'connections
	in the <xxx> area', etc.

	6) Advertisements :-)

	7) Providing junk mail addresses :-)

The costs that I can see are:

	1) Potentially cluttering the namespace listing additional sites.

	2) Added size of the maps.

Neither of these two costs appear to me to be much of an issue. Not all
that many additional sites will want to be added, and many of them
will be domainized. The added size of the maps is hardly an issue:
they're carrying useful information, and as long as that function is
being carried out, volume arguments shouldn't stop things.

I suppose the bottom line is: are the maps Usenet maps, or are they UUCP
maps? My contention, based on both usage and the types of information
that they carry, is that they're de facto Usenet maps, and they should
be de jure Usenet maps as well.

Comments?

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge     Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge
Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself)
Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.