Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site deepthot.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!deepthot!julian From: julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup Subject: Re: New topic, name domains vs. IFIP "user-friendly" non-domain names Message-ID: <302@deepthot.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Apr-84 20:50:49 EST Article-I.D.: deepthot.302 Posted: Wed Apr 25 20:50:49 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Apr-84 07:53:11 EST References: <497@hou3c.UUCP> Organization: UWO CS, London Canada Lines: 87 ------------------------------------- From: REM@Mit-Mc.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) It has been suggested that the IFIP proposal would permit heirarchial domains of naming authority, but I fail to see it. Could somebody explain it to me? -------------------------------------- I wonder which version of the IFIP proposal you are looking at. The latest one I have is "A User-friendly Naming Convention for Public data Networks", Version 2, November 183, arising from the IFIP WG6.5 NASE Subgroup meeting, Ottawa, July 1983. The need is seen for the naming process to be 'user friendly'; that is it should not depend on knowledge of things which humans are unlikely to know routinely. Perhaps an important source of confusion would be to not distinguish between "names" and "addresses". Names are to be expressed in terms of things people can remember easily. Addresses on the other hand are 'machine-oriented'. The systems for identifying people in practically all current message systems, including the ARPAnet 'internet' style, are what would be called 'machine oriented' in this context. The domain names and host names appearing in addresses are closely tied to the hardware config- urations of the networks. It is anticipated that one of the purposes of the directories to be provided in future will be translating from 'names' to 'addresses'. As an example, my university has several machines with mail boxes and mail software; this is not unusual. My address would identify inter alia which machine *my* mail box is on, and which network(s) it can be reached by. My *name* however, would be something like (Canada, University of Western Ontario, Julian Davies) as a fairly minimal version, or I could be named by a more elaborate specification which also mentioned the Province, my department, and maybe a nickname or telephone number to be sure of avoiding ambiguity. The structure of *names* is defined, now, by a directed labelled graph structure. However, the structure is not arbitrary, and the First Guideline is: The dominant structure of the Graph should be hierarchical. That is, the graph will be 'almost' a tree. A tree would be a perfect hierarchy, but here we allow for some flexibility, that in some cases a person may be reachable via several different routes through the directory structure. For instance, it may be that multi-nationals such as IBM would be represented at the top level of the hierarchy, and someone in IBM Bulgaria (for instance) could be reached either starting with the Bulgaria National directory database, or with the IBM top-level database, in either case ending up looking in database provided by that particular organization. The graph also allows for certain links to 'skip a level'; but the graph should certainly be cycle-free. Someone who happens to know the *address* for a person (e.g. an internet address as they now exist) is free to use it. Some people might even remember X.121 numbers they way we have to remember telephone numbers, for a person's personal workstation. But the object is to provide a system at least as good as the telephone directory, and use the power of the computer to help people figure out how to contact each other when they do NOT know the particular networks etc that are involved. -------------------------------------------- After that is cleared up, perhaps we who have seen both the IFIP proposal and the Internet plan could discuss the differences and debate the merits? Personally I like the explicit heirarchial nature of the Internet plan, and would like something like that incorporated into the IFIP proposal, unless it's already there somewhere. -------------------------------------------- In short, the hierarchy is there, but disguised because that seems more likely to be useful. Especially when the message systems get really widespread. But the Differences between the Internet plan and the IFIP proposal are a result of one being a scheme for addresses and the other a proposal for names. The directories will mediate when required. In reality, the name form *has* to have a hierarchy somewhere, because it would be quite impractical otherwise to implement the directory servers. The database will be far too large to put all in one place, or to search without a good search strategy and indexing scheme (say, 10 or 20 years from now). Julian Davies UUCP !uwo!julian ENVOY DJ.DAVIES