Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!jww From: jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) Newsgroups: net.mail,net.mail.headers Subject: RFC920 domains vs. cow patties (flame) Message-ID: <918@sdcsvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 05:40:10 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.918 Posted: Fri Jun 7 05:40:10 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 02:40:42 EDT Reply-To: jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) Organization: CACI, Inc - Federal, La Jolla Lines: 97 Keywords: domains NIC rfc920 Xref: watmath net.mail:887 net.mail.headers:468 Thanks to the generosity of Mark Horton, I recently received a copy of RFC920, "Domain Requirements", 10/84. (I'll forward a copy if anyone doesn't have it and wants one, incidentally) I agree with several points it makes: 1) subdomains are needed to localize the routing of mail. 2) The domain/subdomain scheme should be used in conjunction with the host name to assure a unique address. My "frog" is UUCP'd to "clyde" and apparently some people looked at published maps and assumed that this was another "frog" 3,000 miles away! (-: 3) Every site should have only one name, at least outside its intimate friends. Why should "sdcsvax!jww", "jww@UCSD" "jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA", "jww@sdcsvax.UUCP" all have to be recognizable synonyms for the same destination? Then I took my current addresses, and transformed them under the proposed scheme: gould9!cacimv!joel joel@sdmv.caci.com (coming soon!) joel@frog-nosc.arpa joel@frog.nosc.gov ihnp4!sdcc3!gould9!joel joel@gould9.gould.com jww@sdcsvax.arpa jww@eecs.sd.uc.edu ihnp4!bonnie!jww jww@bonnie.att.com Now what do these all have in common? The last four machines are each linked together directly via tcp/ip or uucp; the first 4 are located within a 10 mile radius of my office in San Diego. But, under the proposed scheme, what do they have to do with each other? Not much. Here are some of my friends, similarly transmogrified ebbe@cc11.cs.uc.edu newman@castor.mit.edu russell@locus.la.uc.edu shari@csd-gould.gould.com dbw@sd.encore.com tim@twg.???.com ian@loral.???.com lauren@vortex.???.com It is my position (burn, heretic! (-:) that the use of domains and subdomains should add to, not subtract from, the information contained in the address. In some cases, the proposed scheme will follow natural organizational affinities - e.g. UCSD, the UC system, DEC, ATT, and so on. But otherwise, this whole idea stinks of a bureaucratic approach to stultify an already working system. Who's going to volunteer to be the domain server for "org"? or, for that matter, for "com"? Now you have all the disadvantages of the ARPAnet without the advantages of a fast transmission scheme. What does a small company (e.g. vortex) do when it's not part of a natural subdomain? In short, the whole NIC approach proposes to re-invent the wheel and replace it with a pyramidal rock. (-: Developed over a period of years, it ignores existing natural addressing schemes that have evolved over decades or centuries. There are many existing routing schemes that would do better, and correspond to some existing, more natural approach. (such a geography) The telephone co. uses a single-level hierarchy (area code), as do the airlines. The post office uses both single (zip) and double (city,state). joel@gould.sd.ca.usa joel@gould.san (globally unique airport code) or joel@gould.921.usa or even joel@gould.619.usa says more than the alternate approach. I don't know about you, but most of our uucp links are local. Most of my contacts in the computer community are local. It is my position (heresy! (-:) that the use of domains and subdomains should add to, not subtract from, the information in the address. Here are some alternate machine addresses. I didn't have to guess "what subdomain is vortex?" Note also that the top-level geographic domain becomes optional for local calls, as with your telephone. frog.nosc.gov frog.nosc[.san] frog.nosc[.sd.ca] eecs.sd.uc.edu eecs.ucsd cc11.cs.uc.edu cc11.ucsd bonnie.att.com bonnie.att.ewr bonnie.wh.nj castor.mit.edu castor.mit.bos castor.mit.cam.ma locus.la.uc.edu locus.ucla.lax locus.ucla.la[.ca] csd-gould.gould.com csd-gould.fll csd-gould.ftl.fl sd.encore.com encore.san encore.sd.ca twg.???.com twg.sjc twg.sil.ca vortex.???.com vortex.lax vortex.la Without knowing much about each of these sites, I could guess their address. (Even if I were slightly wrong, the San Jose server could hold the San Franciscotables, etc.) Not only that, the use of geographical name servers means routing is unambiguous; my "frog" in San Diego is distinct from someone else's "frog" in Boston; not only that, no one is likely to confuse them. Even the subdomains shown aren't strictly necessary, since there aren't likely to be many bonnie's within an hour's drive of Newark. (And for the UNIX network, the "att" in att.ewr is redundant (-:). As always, we welcome your opinions. -- Joel West CACI, Inc. -- Federal {allegra, decvax, ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ARPA Flaming to spark discussion is no sin. -- jww@some.where.or.another