Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!TMC.EDU!sob
From: sob@TMC.EDU (Stan Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: Politics of domain naming sytles (unc.edu)
Message-ID: <9007080320.AA01994@tmc.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 90 03:20:44 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 14

While flexibility is generally a good thing, some combinations don't work
well in the real world.

DNS management and address management are interwoven to some extent. If the
two are not coordinated, things don't work. Certain people have already
complained that the lack of a specific requirement by the NIC on the
assignment of in-addr.arpa (verus the rather explicit requirements for
the assignement of a domain) already cause problems with address mappings
to hostname (e.g. gethostbyaddr()). 

Imagine if the in-addr.arpa and the DNS for some group was controlled by two
different organizations. Is that not problematical? I submit that it is. There
are some organizations where this can be demostrated.
STAN