Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site icarus.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!joe
From: joe@fluke.UUCP (Joe Kelsey)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: RFC920 domains
Message-ID: <2329@icarus.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 16:44:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: icarus.2329
Posted: Fri Jun 14 16:44:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 02:48:13 EDT
References: <918@sdcsvax.UUCP> <532@deepthot.UUCP> <8066@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 24

Jordan -

When is everyone going to realize that the point of domains is to separate
the physical addressing from the naming?

You asked what is wrong with setting up .UUCP as a top-level domain and
using geographic subdomains?  Well, I'll tell you there is a LOT wrong with
that idea.  For one thing, it creates artifical boundaries that people
may confuse with routing.  Domain names have absolutely nothing to do with
routing.  They have absolutely nothing to do with which other sites I choose
to talk to - whether that communication be with UUCP or X.25 or TCP or ...
Geographic domains would force a nation-wide company to make up useless
names for their physically separated computers simply to satisfy someones
idea that there is some "logic" to this scheme.

There are going to be hosts with multiple network connections.  The most
useful part of the domain name scheme is the fact that a host has *exactly*
one name.  It may have multiple physical addresses - one for each physical
network it is connected to - but it has the same *user visible* name on
each network.  Try thinking of the UUCP sitename as an address instead
of a name, then you will be able to see the separation of *naming* from
*addressing* and *routing*.

/Joe