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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.news.config
Subject: Re: name change
Message-ID: <603@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 19:12:46 EST
Article-I.D.: plus5.603
Posted: Tue Feb 19 19:12:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 07:35:48 EST
References: <484@digi-g.UUCP> <405@lsuc.UUCP> <597@plus5.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.mail
Distribution: net
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis
Lines: 85
Xref: watmath net.mail:754 net.news.config:527

I received a reply to my posting from Mark Horton.  What follows is his
letter (reprinted with permission, of course) and my response.

To: wucs!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
Subject: Re: name change

> Hokey - what exactly are you proposing?  Clearly there must be some
> rule for who is entitled to a 2nd level domain.  If anyone is allowed
> to have a 2nd level domain, the number would grow so rapidly that
> there would be no way to keep an accurate map, and no reasonable way
> to deal with mail sent to a 2nd level domain that isn't recognized.

I would prefer that any organization can get a second level domain.  I
realize that, at present, sites are treated as second level domains, but I
believe this to be unnecessary.

Why is an accurate map necessary (accuracte with respect to completeness,
not correctness)?  I realize that by limiting the number of second level
domains an "accurate" map of second level domains is easy.

There is a very easy way to deal with unrecognized second level domains:
the "ring" scheme I mentioned in my mail to the mailing list.  I realize I
haven't followed up with an in-depth description of the scheme, but it
seems pretty easy.

(Subsequent emphasis around *route* and *address* is partially for my
benefit, as well as for any others who might see this but do not have a
clear understanding of the ramifications.)

Basically, we define a "list" of backbone sites.  Mail from The Depths (or
from The Outside) eventually reaches a backbone site.  If the backbone does
not know how to route the mail to the correct destination, it passes the
message to its "right-hand" neighbor.  If the message returns to the initial
backbone site (with the same *address*), it can be rejected.  We can tell
if the message has been seen at "our" site by parsing the header for a
Received-by: line with our name on it.  Small amounts of intelligence will
be required because Other Mailers might try to *route* the mail through
our site; in this case the destination will be a *route* instead of an
*address*.

> There is no requirement that domains be geographic.  In fact, we
> expect to have some non-geographic domains, but only those that
> would be as large as the geographic domains.

The requirements for non-geographic domains are too strict, and there will
be, I believe, great resistance toward their creation.

Geographic domains Stink for organizations which have machines in different
geographic domains.

The only other alternatives are for "groups" to band together.  If we are
going to go to that trouble, we might as well register directly under EDU,
COM, GOV, MIL, or ORG, and bypass the .UUCP domain entirely.  (I have
already discussed this point with Jon Postel.)  Either that, or form the
same domains under .UUCP (which seems silly to me).

> I gather you have some alternative in mind.  What is it?
> 
> 	Mark

Fix the netnews software to permit "permanent" articles.  This will help solve
many existing problems the net now faces, and will also provide a perfect
mechanism for automatically updating site connectivity and domain information.

Help me feel good about the way the uucp-mail project is going, so I feel good
about spending my (mostly non-existent) spare time on the mailer.

Discuss these issues over the net in a moderated format, thereby providing
as many as possible as much information as we can, and also limit the rehash
of well-understood issues by those who have slogged through so much in the
past.

Consider the possibility of a higher level of funding to support the design,
documentation, and software effort (the order of the projects is significant).
I don't really care *who* gets paid to do this; I do get frustrated because
this is taking so long, primarily because we all have higher-priority things
to do (mostly, we all have to earn a living).

How did I do?

Hokey

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