Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!matai.vuw.ac.nz!nzfc.co.nz!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re: ISO/CCITT meeting report) Message-ID: Date: 19 Aug 90 18:08:58 GMT References: <9008161047.aa01196@Obelix.TWG.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 31 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: uunet!comp-protocols-iso-x400@uunet.UU.NET ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU In article <9008161047.aa01196@Obelix.TWG.COM> david@TWG.COM (David Herron) writes: > >> 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).... > Here is one of the major problems (as well as strengths) of the rfc-822 > address scheme with domain-ing. > This reliance on short mnemonic strings of characters to refer to > entities doesn't scale up very well. Sure it does. Hierarchies make the difference. You can have an obelix.twg.com or a twg.uucp (yes, I know it's not a real domain but it's the format we're talking about here) or a twg.leaf.ferranti.com or a twg.bc.ca... > Think about the kind of mess we'd > have if that system were to be used for everybody in the world. We'd sure have big fights over who gets the higher level hierarchies. But that's up to the NIC to resolve, or whoever the big guys assign to the job. > The days of the RFC-822 address format are numbered.. Only for petty political reasons, if at all. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com (currently not working) peter@hackercorp.com