Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!bbn!drilex!dricejb From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) Newsgroups: news.config Subject: Re: Unregistered-but-referenced sites (was Re: deleted UUCP sites) Message-ID: <7261@drilex.UUCP> Date: 5 Jan 90 15:52:10 GMT References: <4195@convex.UUCP> <30273@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> <43496@improper.coherent.com> Distribution: news Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Lines: 28 I have long understood, but not agreed with, this "no links to 'unregistered' sites" policy. It works against the "don't register your leaf nodes--just your domain gateway" policy, and tends to increase the size of the maps. But I can understand that the map coordinators would like to have information on every node. This first hit me when another site in another division joined a 'park' domain, and was no longer listed in the maps because of that. Suddenly, I could not list a link to that site, either. Of course, this was back in the days of the 'expensive' domains. The present brouhaha came about because a map coordinator has decided to place an 'expire' function on his portion of the maps. Everybody not heard from in a year is dead. This means that the 'permanent' name reservation that Mel Pleasant refers to is really only a 'one year' name reservation. Possibly reasonable, but not expected. My map entry doesn't change that often, although it's a bit out of date now. I guess a prudent sysadmin should start learning about the once-a-year abilities of cron ... And the map coordinators should probably expect more low-information map entries, with just enough specified to be accepted. (These would be filed by the neighbors, not the sites themselves, probably.) -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}