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

List:       namedroppers
Subject:    "What's all this talk about Romaine servers?"
From:       Peter Karp <KARP () SUMEX-AIM ! ARPA>
Date:       1984-05-14 10:13:50
[Download RAW message or body]

It almost seems like Emily Litella could help us make sense out of all
of this...

Seriously though:

1) A 100 host minimum for establishing second-level domains does seem
a bit high assuming (a) we would want most universities, corporations,
and other agencies to be named at the second level, and (b) by "host"
we mean something more than a PC, and hence most of the above
institutions do not have anything like 100 of them.

2) Initially the EDU, COR, etc domains do not seem like a bad idea.  The
real question is: are we going to take advantage of the ability of
CNAME RRs to let us define reasonable aliases?  E.G., even if IBM.CSNET
and STANFORD.ARPA are the official names, is it reasonable to define
IBM.COR and STANFORD.EDU as aliases?  This question seems worthwhile
to ask since (a) the recent discussion seems to ignore this feature of
the naming scheme, and (b) the way the specification reads suggests
that these aliases are only meant to serve as host nicknames within
one subdomain, as opposed to defining aliases in subtrees of the name
space which are quite seperate from each other.

3) Finally, consider that it might even be simpler to drop the ARPA
top-level domain to begin with.  After all, what entity in ARPA does
not belong in one of COR, PUB, EDU, GOV ?  Obviously this may be
politically unacceptable.

Peter
-------

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