From: utzoo!decvax!goutal
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: Re: A Plea
Article-I.D.: decvax.332
Posted: Tue Nov  9 12:10:01 1982
Received: Wed Nov 10 01:40:19 1982
References: azure.1450

Well, I can certainly see that for the moment there is a problem.
However, if the ARPAnet standard, or whatever standard or system,
merely translates things to some prearranged case, then the fact that
decvax or whatever doesn't do the same thing is not the fault of the
system that chooses an uppercase name.  It is the fault of the software
on decvax (sorry, Armando).  In other words, if ALL systems were as
consistent as their proponents claim to be, we wouldn't have this problem.
I just can't see banishing some system just because some other system
can't deal with the name of the first.
  Note that this could easily metamorphose into the old general debate
about case sensitivity.  It just reared its ugly head again.
In a different form.  Actually, I guess I would conclude that it's the
fault of the implementor of the ARPAnet standard, such that an implemen-
tation modifies the form of an address that it passes on, rather than
doing the case conversion only for purposes of local comparison.
If the ARPAnet site just left the case alone (except internally),
then uucp sites could continue to be their old case-sensitive selves
(just like I am light-sensitive -- who am I to throw stones?).
Would't that work?  Would that violate the ARPAnet standard?
  _ Kenn (decvax!)goutal