Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!alberta!ers!ncc!lyndon
From: lyndon@ncc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Status of Canadian domain
Message-ID: <53@ncc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 05:19:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncc.53
Posted: Sat Aug 22 05:19:51 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 10:14:18 EDT
References: <8708190102.AA05431@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> <298@ncrcan.UUCP> <1251@van-bc.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Nexus Computing Corp.
Lines: 67

In article <1251@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes:
> 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? 

I *think* I *might* agree, but if we all start to use .CA it will become
second nature in short order (I DO like .CAN, but I ALSO agree with adopting
international standards just to maintain consistency [RS-232? tee hee!])
  
> 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.)

TRUE! But ONLY in the U.S.A.  The ISO standard *should* (does?) have
the ultimate say here.
  
> 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.

NO! 2'nd level domain space is controlled ONLY by the 1st level domain...
(Whatever that organization may be) CCITT or RFCxxx be damned!

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

This is true. I have a lot of respect for what the EAN people are doing,
However, they are NOT the OFFICIAL representatives of the .CA domain in
my mind, in that they have not consulted me or any of my associates who
are part of the "UUCP Domain."

> 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.

Again, this is a valid statement. The question at hand is "Who, within
the Canadian 'Internet' community is going to act as the Official
representative to SRI, or whoever???"

CDNNet no doubt has some valid concerns, as may many other "networks"
(such as APSSNet) may have.  I am interested in seeing our little
"network" have some type of representation in the development of
.CA, as I am sure people in BITNET and other networks are also.
I don't want to pick on a certain organizaation, but it seems that
the CDNNet reps are attacking (not a good word?) SRI and others
as if they are the de facto body speaking on behalf of
all of us in Canada. I do not think this is the case. I certainly
do not think this SHOULD be the case.

With the recent discussion on the concept of TCNET, it might be
worthwhile to sit back and discuss the idea of a Canadian
mail [and news???] network, and examine the ramifications of
building such a netowrk, before anything is engraved in stone.

FOR THE RECORD, I *LIKE* the idea of .CAN, but I also HATE going
against international standards. My "vote" is for .CA for that reason.
(And ONLY for that reason). I do not believe .CDN, .EARN, or anyone
deserve status as a top level domain. Perhaps .CDN.NET has merit,
or .EARN.NET, but that's as far as it goes...