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: Canadian UUCP Zone (was Re: Status of Canadian domain) Message-ID: <1262@van-bc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 18:21:52 EDT Article-I.D.: van-bc.1262 Posted: Sun Aug 23 18:21:52 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Aug-87 01:35:44 EDT References: <8708190102.AA05431@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> <298@ncrcan.UUCP> <1251@van-bc.UUCP> <53@ncc.UUCP> Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Distribution: can Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC. Lines: 124 Keywords: uucp zone domains In article <53@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >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! Your absolutely right. What the EAN people are trying to do is to impose a structure on the second level name space which will map easily into the X.DS implementations. They don't want to have to start over again when they implement the Directory Service. From the point of view of responsible administration this is probably a good idea. IFF we believe that X.DS (and X.400 etc) will play a large role in future mail systems in Canada. My personal opinion is that I would prefer to stay in line with any American standards (RFC's, Arpa, Internet) than to align with the European standards (X.??). When most of my mail needs are to talk to people who may not have domain names which are supported by X.DS then there isn't a whole lot of benefit in my supporting it. >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. I my personal opinion is that we should start a Canadian UUCP Zone registry. It would agree to cooperate with the Canadian Domain Registry on three areas: - we will share ".ca" - we will co-operate with them to ensure that names allocated in the UUCP .ca zone are unique and unambigous - we will provide routing information and gateway information to other Canadian Zones (EAN,NETNORTH) and other top level domains (i.e. NIC) Specifically it will ensure that before anyone uses a name in the 2nd level that it is reserved with the Canadian Domain Registry to avoid collisions. It will make arrangements via the US UUCP Zone to register Canadian uucp sites with the NIC to ensure forwarding from US sites is done directly via uucp connections (e.g. UUNET) instead of through other zones connections (e.g. CDNet). It will make arrangements with other Canadain Zones to ensure that mail routed to Canadain sites is done (hopefully) without having to hop over the border. Other than that the UUCP Zone should be able to make it's own decisions on the structure of it's part of the .ca namespace (as long as it does not choose 2nd level names which collide with names already allocated in other Canadian zones). Also the Canadian UUCP Zone should be able to be setup very quickly, and independantly from the other Zones. As long as a responsible organization is setup to administer the Canadian Zone the other Canadian Zones should have no problems with this. The fact that they can't get their act together should not prevent us from doing so! Also remember that the people in the UUCP community have as much right to manage their part of the .ca namespace as any other network. Up to now there has been a distinct lack of communication between the other network organizers and the UUCP community. They don't have any special rights or qualities that should allow them force a solution on us, that we don't want, or that we don't want to wait for. By setting up a Canadian UUCP Zone like this we can basically operate separately from the Canadian Domain Registry and develop the Zone the way that the uucp community needs it. Not the way that EAN/Netnorth/... needs/wants it. Any comments? If you must flame, at least make it constructive! P.S. If the EAN/Netnorth people cannot agree to split up the .ca namespace in a co-operative fashion then the only suggestion I can make is to split it by network: .uucp.ca .cdn.ca .netnorth.ca etc. Personally I think that this is abhorrent, but if thats the only way we can structure the namespace then so be it. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532