Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Status of Canadian domain
Message-ID: <1251@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Aug-87 04:33:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: van-bc.1251
Posted: Fri Aug 21 04:33:13 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 18:00:20 EDT
References: <8708190102.AA05431@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> <298@ncrcan.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Distribution: can
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 30

In article <298@ncrcan.UUCP> brian@ncrcan.UUCP () writes:
>
>I prefer .CAN as a top level domain myself.  The domain .CA looks *too*
>much like California.   Why was a two letter top level chosen anyways... all
>the major ones (ie .COM, .GOV, .EDU) are three letters now? 

This is mainly due to the influence of X.400 and the efforts to follow the
international standards. "CA" is the officially sanctioned abbreviation for
Canada. (Of course it is also the officially sanctioned -- by US Post Office
-- abbreviation for California.)

While we are on the topic it might be noted that the use of Organizational
2nd level domain names is also due to X.400 related standards. Mainly in the
directory service area. It allows the domain names that we choose to slide
fairly easily into a directory server implemented to CCITT standards.

One of the hot areas of X.400 work in North America is CDNet, based here in
Vancouver at ean.ubc.cdn.

If anyone "really" wants to know I can dig out the relavent numbers and
names of standards. It's all pretty dry reading, and not of too much immediate
importance. At least not until the US Internet Community gets a lot more
interested in implementing them. 

At least for us in uucpland the NIC RFC's are much more important and
useful.


-- 
{ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532