Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site plus5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.news.config
Subject: Re: name change
Message-ID: <597@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 16:24:06 EST
Article-I.D.: plus5.597
Posted: Fri Feb 15 16:24:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 05:15:42 EST
References: <484@digi-g.UUCP> <405@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Distribution: net
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis
Lines: 42
Keywords: Domains, religious mail wars
Xref: watmath net.mail:753 net.news.config:518
Summary: 

In article <405@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have
>as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are
>unrelated to their organization.
>
>Couldn't you use "digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"?

Another, better, solution is to use a decent domain scheme (or a decent
edge database system) to avoid the problem of name ambiguities.

And I don't mean geographic domains, either!  There is no *good* reason for
using the proposed geographic domain system.  If the primary reason for going
to a geographic domain system is to reduce the administrative load and table
maintenance, there are easier and better ways.

A "flatter" namespace is much easier to use.  I would *greatly* prefer our
machines to be known as plus5.uucp instead of plus5.geographic.uucp for
several reasons:

	- shorter to type
	- makes sense if we have sites in many geographic regions
	- fewer table entries to maintain

There are *many* sites on the net which do not meet the proposed requirements
for a second level domain but have offices distributed amongst many geographic
domains.  Other than Sun, HP, Dec, Tek, ATT, and any others which clearly
meet the proposed requirement (now), we have Gould, Perkin-Elmer, Interactive
Systems, Intel, Masscomp, CCI, and untold smaller firms which span the
proposed geographic boundaries.  "Forcing" these people to join local domains
or to setup multiple domain addresses just makes for bigger tables and
greater frustration for users (because all the names are "hidden" below
the geographic subdomain).

Administration/registration of a "flatter" namespace can be easily handled
by separating the "assistant" administrators/registrars from the actual
second level domain names.

We could even use the current regional map coordinators for the job.

-- 
Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492