Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!elroy!peregrine!zardoz!dhw68k!david
From: david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Puting routes for other systems' connections in your map
Summary: Speaking of Rude & Evil Things to do....
Message-ID: <21465@dhw68k.cts.com>
Date: 27 Mar 89 12:49:41 GMT
References: <270@verdix.verdix.com> <976@ditka.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill)
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)
Lines: 66

In article <976@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes:
>In article <270@verdix.verdix.com> nomad@verdix.com (Lee Damon) writes:
>>...I notice that a lot of people are posting things like:

>>#N	foo
>>[deleted]
>>bar	bloviy(DEDICATED), blivit(EVENING)

>>Now, I realize that things are supposed to look like this, but in foo's
>>map?  This means that foo is advertising a link between bar and ...

>>What do you think?

>With two exceptions, I think this practice is wrong.  First special
>case is if foo and bar are at the same site and under common admin-
>istration.  Perhaps the #N line should reflect this by listing both
>machines, e.g. "#N foo, bar".

I would suggest this iff "foo" and "bar" were, in fact, the same
machine.  (The maps are sometimes used for other than their pathalias
information; placing such #N lines in map entries can be rather
confusing, at best.)  I would *hope* that the pathalias information
would be consistent with the commentary....  (Silly, idealistic me....)

>The other case is for a new link when the postmaster at the other
>site is a bit slow about updating his/her map entry.  [Example deleted]

This ought not be an issue for new sites; upon seeing the "forward
link," pathalias will assume the existence of a reverse link that is
DEAD.  If that's the only way to get to a machine -- not uncommon if it
is, in fact, a new site -- pathalias will still figure that DEAD link is
the only way to get to the site.  (Regardless of the "cost" of the link,
what pathalias makes is finally a binary decision: is the link to be
used or not?)

For a new link for a previously-existing site, yes, there is a potential
for problems if this occurs.  However, I still would not recommend the
action being discussed as a solution -- after all, it really *is*
someone else's map entry.  That person needs to be responsible for it --
period.

>>Should this kind of thing be allowed?

>Except for the two cases I mention above, no.

As indicated, I wouldn't even go that far.  I don't think it should be
done -- period.

>>Should the mapping project paople (or what's left of 'em) delete
>>this from submitted maps (or just bounce them back)?

>It seems appropriate that they take some action.

Agreed.

>>nomad (the nasty nit-picker)

>Good to see I'm not alone.  :-)

Well, I'm not at all sure how many of me I'd like on the net....  :-)

Your for better maop entries,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill
uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!david	InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com