Xref: utzoo news.misc:1083 news.config:390
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!mimsy!mangoe
From: mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: The USENET Backbone
Message-ID: <10050@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 88 04:03:38 GMT
References: <1857@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 22
Summary: Can Calm Prevail?

It's pretty clear that the trunk system of USENET involves more than the
"backbone".  It's also clear that when the sites of this trunk system decide
to act together, their will will largely prevail (and when they act at odds
with one another there is pure chaos).

It seems to have been admitted that the "Backbone" consists of a subset of
this trunk system which is willing to take on a certain responsibility for
management of the system.  This is, it seems, an unalterable fact of
NETlife; if they don't go along with something, it won't work.  A lot of
the complaining going on about the backbone seems steadfast in its refusal
to admit to this, and thus lacks a certain credibility.  On the other hand,
I don't see why the backbone article cannot be a little better descriptive
of what the backbone is, because people are going to continue to play with
the graph and conclude that the backbone is quite a bit larger than it is
depicted-- and we'll go through this sort of complaint again.

So why can't the backbone article add to the list of qualifications the
willingness to be publicly listed as part of the backbone, with appropriate
explanation?  It would seem to be an easy way to save grief over this issue
in the future.

C. Wingate