Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ll-xn!mit-eddie!bu-cs!halleys!ulowell!page
From: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Fidonet domain naming
Message-ID: <1220@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: Fri, 24-Apr-87 14:15:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ulowell.1220
Posted: Fri Apr 24 14:15:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Apr-87 20:49:42 EST
References: <149@4gl.UUCP> <108@hobbes.UUCP> <1589@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Organization: University of Lowell
Lines: 36
Summary: Establish a "FIDO Zone" like UUCP did.  Follow UUCP's lead.
Xref: mnetor comp.mail.headers:187 comp.sys.ibm.pc:3542

The answer seems simple enough from the outside.  Have the NIC recognize
a FIDO zone (like a UUCP zone) to allow some administrative organization
to register domains into the existing namespace.

The parallel to UUCP is critical.  UUCP uses a "non-standard" (non '@')
address format; so does FIDO.  UUCP has set up an administrative entity
that processes requests to be added to the Internet namespace; FIDO can
do exactly the same thing.  The addresses for UUCP-only hosts can look
just like a DDN address; and routing is not specified in the address.
There's no reason why FIDO-only hosts can't have the same thing.

I should _not_ know that the mail I just got from foo@bar.com is a site
on BITNET, ARPANET, MILNET, CSNET, UUCP, FIDO or anything else.
There is no UUCP.ORG for the UUCP network, and there should not be
a FIDO.ORG for the FIDO network.

As far as getting reasonable software on FIDO nodes to do the translation
between FIDO addresses and Internet (RFC822) addresses, that's FIDO's
problem, just as it is a problem for UUCP sites.  There's no reason why
a FIDO node can't have an equivalent to 'uumail' or 'smail'.

As far as what to name the site, the problem on FIDO is the exact same
problem on UUCP.  Hobbyists don't fit into the NICs scheme.  Sites
like BYTE, branches of the US Govt, etc, should have no cause for alarm.
The hobbyist issue is a totally separate beast and should not be
covered in this discussion.

In the interim, have some sites act as UUCP/FIDO gateways, just like
we have published NETa/Netb gateways now.  Sure the addressing will be
hairy for those that use the gateway, but I imagine that most FIDO
sites will quickly adopt RFC822 compliant software when it becomes
available (unlike many UUCP sites).

..Bob
-- 
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept.   page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}