Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu!karl From: karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: news.sysadmin Subject: Re: Stuck with .UUCP forever? Message-ID: Date: 30 May 89 13:33:00 GMT References: <1728@fig.bbn.com> <3790007@eecs.nwu.edu> <320@xdos.UUCP> <622@whizz.uucp> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: OSU Lines: 19 In-reply-to: bbh@whizz.uucp's message of 25 May 89 07:33:55 GMT bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: Mel, I'm frankly a little confused (by my own ignorance, I'm sure), but is the problem of setting up a .uucp domain primarily technical, or - as I tend to infer from your note - primarily political? I wouldn't describe it as a political problem, but realize that top-level domains like .uucp (not to mention .bitnet, .csnet, .fido, and .IDontKnowWhatAllElse) all constitute TRANSPORT-based domains, which is the philosophical inverse of one of the things which domains are supposed to do: hide the underlying technical nonsense of how the bits get flown between Hither and Yon. The folks running the root servers were no more impressed with the idea of a .bitnet top-level domain than .uucp, for the same reason. Domains are supposed to provide organizational information, not connectivity. It shouldn't matter to you what network the remote end connects with, or how your mail gets there, just so long as it does. --Karl