[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       namedroppers
Subject:    domains in more than one higher domain
From:       allegra!watmath!bstempleton () Berkeley (Brad Templeton)
Date:       1984-05-12 22:33:37
[Download RAW message or body]


First of all, as I recall, the original ideas made no distinction
between "host" and "domain".  A "host" was just the degenerate case
of a domain, namely a domain that was only one machine and had no
subdomains.

All that aside, it has been pointed out that we should not bar hosts
(I don't mind the term btw, I am just wondering why we scrapped it and
are bringing it back) from being in several domains.

I would go further and say that all hosts should and must be in all
the domains that can reasonably be in.  One of the goals we should aim
for is to allow people to send mail to somebody @ somewhere, and have
a good chance of figuring out how to send it first try.

One should certainly not have to worry about whether "sri" is
military, educational, corporate or miscilaneous.  It should be ALL.
If not, then these distinctions only serve to confuse, not organize.

In fact, the only one I see a real reason for is "public", so we have
a top level domain that can be used for things like "uucp" that don't
have a central administrator and never will.  We all still want to
exchange mail, so we can't shut off nets of this sort or else they will
continue to have access in nonstandard, underground sorts of ways that
nobody understands.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]