Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!buit13!kwe
From: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: .UUCP domain
Summary: Why not somewhere lower down?
Message-ID: <64260@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 90 18:09:33 GMT
References: <6254@hub.ucsb.edu> <900912.234417z.16326.wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Distribution: inet
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 16

In article <900912.234417z.16326.wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu> 
wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes:
>...
>The proposal for a ".UUCP" top-level domain has been raised many times,
>but the "powers that be" in charge of the domain naming system are not
>willing to accept it.  The main reason why not is that the domain hier-
>archy isn't supposed to be based on network topologies, but rather on
>organizational and/or geographical considerations.  Proposals for a top-
>level domain ".BITNET" have been rejected for similar reasons.

	So why hasn't someone tried to get domains like
uucp.usenix.org and bitnet.educom.edu?  There must be some level of
the hierarchy where the "powers that be" are sympathetic.  (Don't
suggest uucp.bu.edu.  :-)

	--Kent