Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: pvm@venera.isi.edu (Paul Mockapetris)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re: ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <9008161710.AA08644@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: pvm@venera.isi.edu
Lines: 31
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 16 Aug 90 17:36:00 +0200.
             <9008161536.AA21141@piring.cwi.nl>
Posted-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:10:56 PDT

> 	I can't resist:  It might be that the people working at the
> 	ZPL.DFN.DBP.DE are happy with their nice short address, but all
> 	those poor people from
> 	THEORETISCHE-INFORMATIK.NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN.XYZTH-SCHILDA.DBP.DE
> Those poor people shouldn't even be able to send mail to
> or get mail from the Internet, since the secondary and
> all lower subdomains violate RFC920 (>12 chars)....
>
>
> 	Piet

While I personally find names like "cwi.nl" somewhat easier to type, I
wouldn't worry too much about:

"THEORETISCHE-INFORMATIK.NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN.XYZTH-SCHILDA.DBP.DE"

The DNS restriction is 63 characters per label or approx 255 total,
restricting names to about 3 screen lines (I don't know how many lines
that is on a business card.)  The 12 character limit from RFC 920 was
there mostly to try and help out folks with HOSTS.TXT software.

RFC1123, page 13, says:

      Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and
      SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.

So, in the worst case, (i.e.  to make it under the "MUST" criterion),
only a single character of abbreviation would be required, and I
suspect most software could hack it today.

paul