Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!sally!plocher
From: plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Domain Registration
Message-ID: <107917@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 3 Jun 89 00:20:51 GMT
References: <1105@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> <KARL.89May31103452@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> <7518@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <1120@uceng.UC.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 35

In article <1120@uceng.UC.EDU> kamat@uceng.UC.EDU (Govind N. Kamat) writes:
>>gateway and let it handle delivery".  The domain scheme violates this
>>basic modularity principle by wanting hosts on BITNET conform to a
>>non-BITNET naming scheme.
>
>Domains are administrative, not topological.  But that does not in any
>way preclude setting up a domain for XNET, using your own set of names
>as I mentioned above.

Which of these are legal?

	121.45.33/123.XNET.NET
	<Secret service>@Washington_D.C.XNET.NET

Following your reasoning, Both.

	Because as you say, they are in the XNET domain.

In reality, Neither.

	The first (121.45.33/123) is the "name" of a fidonet node.
	This is the name by which other Fidonet nodes identify each
	other.  But, the syntax [0-9]*.[0-9]* is explicitly dissallowed
	by the domain naming RFCs.

	The second case is made up, simply to show that you can not use
	arbitrary "names" for your machines, even if you "hide" them
	behind a domain name.  This "name" uses "@" and "<",">" and "."
	in ways which are not consistant with the RFCs.

I have to agree, in a general way, with the person you quoted.  It is
not just Bitnet which must change the naming scheme to match.  Others
have had to also.

   -John Plocher