Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3 From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Re: Area-code as uucp domains - (nf) Message-ID: <2420@fortune.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 07:05:24 EST Article-I.D.: fortune.2420 Posted: Fri Feb 3 07:05:24 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 03:30:08 EST Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 58 #R:hogpc:-32500:fortune:26900019:000:2608 fortune!rpw3 Feb 3 02:58:00 1984 To repeat Erik Fair, the discussion in net.mail is "better", since those who are actively working on it are posting there. But... Who can resist? I would just like to point out: Geograhically based names are no good for geographically dispersed sites in the same domain. (What SINGLE area code is ".DEC", ".ATT", ".HP", or for that matter, ".Fortune"?) Geographic names are good for selecting routes, hence should be used for "addresses". The concept of "domains" is precisely to isolate the "naming" of resouces/hosts/people from the "route" to them. One wants "user@group.org.UUCP" to be reachable by anyone who has a path to ANY gateway into "org", no matter how many machines that is or where they are, much less what "group" is. (The nature of "group" is PRIVATE to "org" domain's administrator and itself may be more than one machine. Only the "group" administrator needs to know what machine "user" gets mail on.) Some geographical sub-domains may be necessary to accommodate a large number of single sites who do not wish to expend the resources to maintain full routing tables. I strongly suspect that these will follow the lines of the current regional newsgroup names. For example, there will probably be a ".ba.UUCP" for the San Francisco Bay Area, a territory that is naturally treated as a unit and that extends over several area codes. But many sites in the Bay Area will be part of nationally (or internationally) dispersed domains; mutual encapsulation will be needed (i.e., both "xxx.ba.org" and "xxx.org.ba"). In summary, the area code proposal should really be considered as an "addressing" method, a refinement of which could be based (in the US) on ZIP+4. Note that telephone and Telenet numbers are "addresses", like ZIP codes; they tell you "where", not "who" or "what". Area codes or ZIP codes MAY be useful as addresses, but not as domains. Current UUCP host names are really "routes", but could evolve to either "addresses" or "names within domains". Rob Warnock UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3 DDD: (415)595-8444 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065 References (somewhat sketchy): 1. The John Shoch (Xerox) paper "Names, Addresses, and Routes" and the Jerry Saltzer (MIT) follow-on commentary paper (with a similar name) supply an excellent vocabulary and view of the issues. 2. The Oppen and Dalal (Xerox) paper on "Clearinghouse" (Tech Report OPD-T8103) gives a good introduction to functions needed in in a name server, as well as an overall rationale on domains.