jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (08/11/85)
Larry Wall suggests a good number of things about domains. However, both he and Chris Torek talk about the issue of the dumb vs smart (and even the pseudo-smart) hosts. In order for domains to work, you need authoratative sources of information. Now, before everyone can shout "ANARCHY FOREVER" or "THAT'S DUMB, IT WILL CLOG HOSTS WITH MAIL!!", think about the other meanings of the word "authority" and you will see that in this context, authority does not mean, "OH, OKAY, HE IS THE GUY WHO IS PART OF THE DOMAIN I WANT TO GET TO, SO I'LL JUST DUMP TO HIM...", but, rather, routing can go on as per usual, with people talking to whomever they want, UNTIL AN ILLEGAL ADDRESS IS FOUND. Someone has to make the determination of whether an address doesn't exist or "I'm simply not smart enough..." So, let's (again) change this terminology to be two classes of host: + the uninteresting one. he resolves non-local addresses to a "gateway" to the domain in question (similar to Chris' scheme). + the interesting one, call it "domain master". this is a host who was the first machine in a given domain, who is in charge of making sure that any new domain under him has a unique name. Once that happens, the "responsibility" for the tree below that is responsible for what's below that. this is not a "central authority" like the NIC, but a distributed authority for each level in the domain tree. The only reason for an authority is to have *someone* who can make a determination as to the validity of an address. We (Phil Lapsley and I) are working on a scheme that does just this, as well as being intra-net compatable (which Chris' doesn't) and we'll have a paper ready for it sometime next week. Here are the +'s for everyone : + no freedom is lost to the anarchists + no restrictions (other than unique host names in a subdomain -- obvious) for wierdos who want to name their host after a legendary one in existance... + don't NEED pathalias, for those with no disk space who still want to be intelegent about routing (NOTE: if you *want* to run that stuff, go right ahead..) + doesn't require bizzare sendmail re-write rules for wandering syntax precidences (doesn't re-write addresses at all, for that matter... hmmm... such a novel idea!) + doesn't take a guru to maintain, just enough SA knowlege (i.e.., if you can update L.sys, you can do domains...) + Clears up the "question_of_Cc:'s" going to different nets ---------- Jordan Hayes ucbvax!jordan Phil Lapsley ucbvax!phil