Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Fidonet domain naming
Message-ID: <3540@cbosgd.ATT.COM>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 22:45:41 EST
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.3540
Posted: Mon Apr 20 22:45:41 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 00:55:02 EST
References: <149@4gl.UUCP> <108@hobbes.UUCP> <1589@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 87
Summary: Response to Gilmore's diatribe
Xref: mnetor comp.mail.headers:186 comp.sys.ibm.pc:3445

In article <2020@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>This is actually pretty funny.  The uucp project has been pushing
>little uucp hosts to register in made-up geographic domains because the
>administrative burden is supposedly too high if they all use their real
>names.  Now I am hearing the same people saying that we can't hook up a
>geographically named network (FidoNET) to the domain system because it
>ties the network geography to the name.  Instead, they want all 1500
>FidoNET hosts to come up with (geographic?) domain names and register
>them (for $20/yr apiece?  Hmm, $30K/yr for the registry may be the
>motivation here).  We're trying to build a gateway, not an empire.

Good grief, John, what brought this on?
I was trying to make some constructive comments, and I get this.

I have never advocated geographic domains, I oppose them.  ("Geographic"
means things like "city within state within country" to me, what does it
mean to you?  Do you by any chance mean "topological"?)

I never said FIDO should have 1500 private COM or ORG domains, either,
although that may be one option to consider.

I also never said that the UUCP project owns the name space and would
charge FIDO to register in it.  The UUCP Project only handles domains
that use UUCP, or appear to use UUCP - we aren't even interested in
handling FIDO.  FIDO is a separate net, and if it will act like a
separate net (responsible adult administration, for example) it could
probably be a peer of the other US academic networks.  This also assumes
FIDO makes its own arrangements for Internet forwarding of mail.

>What's wrong with grafting their naming system into the domain tree?

It's certainly a possibility worth investigating, but it's not a given
that it should be done that way.

>> You can't just create a top level domain name like .FIDO, or even a
>> 2nd level domain name like .FIDO.NET.  You have to get the registrar
>> of the parent domain to agree to it.  You'll never get the NIC to create
>> a top level FIDO domain, and they own the root.
>
>The NIC does not own the root; the NIC is *squatting* on the US root.
>The NIC has no power over whether people use the .UK domain and has no
>power over whether people use the .FIDO domain.  What are they gonna
>do, send the DoD after us with tanks?  They may refuse to route mail to
>.FIDO, but that's OK, they don't route mail to FidoNET right now, so
>nobody is losing anything.  I presume that pathalias can cope with Yet
>Another Top Level Domain without trouble, so most uucp sites would be
>able to talk to FidoNET.  (Don't construe this paragraph to mean that I
>like .FIDO addresses; I prefer FIDO.NET.  But if the NIC won't let
>us have FIDO.NET, we can always use .FIDO.)

If you want to join the ARPA domain system, you have to play by the rules.
(I don't make the rules, I just cooperate with them because I believe in
them.) One of the key rules is that each domain has a registrar, and that
registrar has final say about that domain.  The registrar of the root is
the NIC.  If you decide to create a domain called .FIDO, without bothering
to register it with the NIC (and convince them that it's a good idea),
nobody is going to stop you, but that part of the world that only pays
attention to officially registered domains won't talk to you.  (UUCP is
pretty liberal about who we'll talk to - see d.Top in the map for the
long list of domains we recognize, many of which aren't real domains.
Many other nets and hosts are much stricter.)

If the responsible people running FIDO are seriously interested in joining
the ARPA domain system, there is a meeting in Washington DC on April 27
they should be represented at.  Contact me and I'll put you in touch with
those at the NIC who set this up.

>I suspect that if the NIC gets too high-handed about doling out the
>domain address space in the US, that we can get somebody like NBS,
>ANSI, or AT&T to do it in a more even-handed fashion.  ("Gee, you
>*want* to hook up your mail system with us?  Good idea, let us know
>what names you want" instead of "Grump grump, here, read these 1000 pages
>of documentation and tell us your 5-year plan to convert to Our Way of
>Doing Things -- then we'll consider it".)  Where is it in the military
>services' charter to control the domestic email address space?

This is exactly what I expect to happen with X.400.  If you want to get
into the X.400 email game, go talk to these organizations, and someday
something like this will be set up.  (It's still a few years off, but
my guess is NBS will do it.)  Bodies like this can't be bothered with
anything that isn't an international standard, they ignore ARPA and UUCP.

And if you think the NIC is unreasonable about registrations (I don't know
why you think so, you haven't even asked them) I'd love to see your face
when you go to CCITT or NBS and ask for a top level domain called "FIDO".

	Mark