sl@van-bc.UUCP (09/17/87)
I recently sent some mail to Rick Adams at UUNET asking about setting up a domain park and complained about the $150/year charge, lack of action up here about .ca, etc. As usual the yanks have a much more pragmatic approach -- lets get on with it -- than the canadian attitude of -- lets think about it a bit more -- as epitomized by the .cdn (ean) and netnorth people who *say* they want to set up the .ca domain but havn't. This is his reply. > There's no reason to pay the uucp project the $150 to register. I'll register > a domain for you. > > Why not van.bc.ca? I would pass off everything in bc.ca to you to handle. > You could be the registrar for a ll of british columbia until someone > else is willing to do it. Have you talked to ubc about it? > > A mi.us (michigan usa) domain is forming right now that is essentially > a park. There's no reason you couldn't do somethign similar. You should > at least ask UBC if they want to get involved. > > ---rick > BTW I did not in any way suggest van.bc.ca. That was his suggestion. Is there any reason NOT to just do as he suggests. The .cdn and netnorth people certainly don't have anymore right to organize the .ca domain than you or me or anyone else. They've had a year to get it going. I've been bugging the ean people since last November to get things moving. I've even asked just to allow me to use a 2nd level domain name "officially" and I would arrange for all forwarding etc via UUNET, but have been told that they can't do that, and that they were to busy to get something organized (this was in June, havn't heard anything from them since). Any comments. Flames welcome, it at least shows there's some interested people out there. As I've said before, I'm less interested in the fine details of how second level domains should be organized (there is no clear rationale reason to use or NOT to use any of the methods so far suggested, pick one and use it), as to just getting going. From a practical point of view, I would like to set up a domain for myself so that I can more effectively block mail for eastern canada being routed from UUNET via me to ubc-vision. Sep 17 00:05 1592 uunet!mcvax!cwi.nl!uucp /bin/uux - ubc-vision!rmail '(deepthot.uwo.cdn!zenon)' Sep 17 00:06 738 uunet!mcvax!geocub!lapalme /bin/uux - ubc-vision!rmail '(iro.udem.cdn!major)' Why these came to here to get forwarded is anyones guess. (Who is udem.cdn anyway?). But UUNET can apparently re-route them appropriately, without rerouting legitimate mail if we have a better "domain". So for example if we were to become .van.bc.ca all mail to ..!van-bc!.. and bc.ca would be rerouted, (probably via ubc-vision). Mail to ...van.bc.ca would arrive safe and sound directly here. Without a better domain, all mail to ...!van-bc!..! would be re-routed (ie all mail with van-bc in the route, but not destined to van-bc. Of course I could just get him to re-route *ALL* of my mail and let ubc-vision foot the bill. Actually not a bad idea, they connect a lot more often than I do, I'd get my mail a *LOT* faster and at much less *EXPENSE* to myself :-). We need .ca *NOW* !!!! Not next year. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532 -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
rayan@utegc.UUCP (09/18/87)
It'd be a bit difficult for Rick to set up a .bc.ca seeing as that a .ca already exists, and he isn't the person responsible for it (John Demco is); and John isn't likely to set up anything until all requirements are clear. We're in the final throes of doing this now. The registration forms etc. exist in draft form and have been discussed. I'm still trying to get the namespace split up in a consistent manner (anything that decreases the namespace explosion problem, is better than everything at the second level...), and things in general are progressing. rayan
egisin@orchid.UUCP (09/18/87)
In article <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>, rayan@ai.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) writes: > We're in the final throes of doing this now. The registration forms > etc. exist in draft form and have been discussed. I'm still trying > to get the namespace split up in a consistent manner (anything that > decreases the namespace explosion problem, is better than everything > at the second level...), and things in general are progressing. I thought there was a lot of support for second level organizational domains expressed in this group over the last couple of months. I support them, and don't see any problems with "namespace explosion". Personal machines will most likely register as 3rd and 4th level domains under domain parks, like the one Stuart Lynne suggested. I can't see more than 20 to 40 sites capable (with an appropriate mailer) of registering as second level domain under .ca if where avaible today. In five years there might be a couple of hundred, not thousands as some suggest. I assume there will be some real costs with running the .ca domain, and a fee for second level domains. Is this the case?
rayan@utegc.UUCP (09/19/87)
In article <10740@orchid.waterloo.edu> egisin@orchid.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) writes:
# I thought there was a lot of support for second level organizational
# domains expressed in this group over the last couple of months.
There have been various opinions expressed, but the postings to this group
doesn't necessarily represent all the UUCP sites. I'm still largely guided by
the reasoning shown by the comments I received from 50-odd sysadmins when they
were polled a few months ago. I posted a numbers summary from that poll here.
# I can't see more than 20 to 40 sites capable (with an appropriate mailer)
# of registering as second level domain under .ca if where avaible today.
Hmm... the UUCP map has: 25 universities and colleges, 6 home computers,
10-odd government type places, and 80 commercial organizations of widely
varying shapes and sizes. To that we should add the non-UUCP CDNNET,
NetNorth, and DND associated organizations, say 10-20 extra educational and
commercial sites each. That's 200. Right now they can all get mailers that
support domains, all 200-odd of them... not all of them will want to, but
certainly many will. I know there is a relatively large collection of sites
that are reachable but haven't announced themselves.
I think getting into the multi-thousands in the next 10-20 years is not at
all unrealistic.
# I assume there will be some real costs with running the .ca domain,
# and a fee for second level domains. Is this the case?
Probably. Details not yet worked out.
rayanlyndon@ncc.UUCP (09/19/87)
In article <1341@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > I recently sent some mail to Rick Adams at UUNET asking about setting up a > domain park and complained about the $150/year charge, lack of action up > here about .ca, etc. [ ... ] > This is his reply. > >> There's no reason to pay the uucp project the $150 to register. I'll register > > a domain for you. Nice guy? This is a *bad* precedent... > > Why not van.bc.ca? I would pass off everything in bc.ca to you to handle. > > You could be the registrar for all of british columbia until someone > > else is willing to do it. Have you talked to ubc about it? What does ubc have to do with this (see later)? > > A mi.us (michigan usa) domain is forming right now that is essentially > > a park. There's no reason you couldn't do somethign similar. You should > > at least ask UBC if they want to get involved. See above (and later). > Is there any reason NOT to just do as he suggests. The .cdn and netnorth > people certainly don't have anymore right to organize the .ca domain than > you or me or anyone else. They should not have any more or less input than the rest of us, but... >They've had a year to get it going. I've been bugging the ean people since last > November to get things moving. I've been bugging the EAN people for _at least_ the same amount of time just for *information* about what's happening... > I've even asked just to allow me to use a 2nd > level domain name "officially" and I would arrange for all forwarding etc > via UUNET, but have been told that they can't do that, and that they were to > busy to get something organized (this was in June, havn't heard anything > from them since). You might talk to one of the "official" .CA gateways about this. Recent UUCP maps indicate UBC is one of the "official" gateways (for this non- existant domain). > Any comments. Flames welcome, it at least shows there's some interested > people out there. As I've said before, I'm less interested in the fine > details of how second level domains should be organized (there is no clear > rationale reason to use or NOT to use any of the methods so far suggested, > pick one and use it), as to just getting going. The UBC crowd has done some incredible things with X.400 and their EAN system. As a result of all of this they have become sidetracked from the important issue of setting up a domain for Canada... (something they implicitly have undertaken by their actions over the last year). > From a practical point of view, I would like to set up a domain for myself > so that I can more effectively block mail for eastern canada being routed > from UUNET via me to ubc-vision. The domain may not help here. Routing all this mail is more of a side effect of your MAP entry. I don't understand why uunet marks _everything_ it talks to as a DEMAND entry. This is definately _not_ the case in most situations. If _you_ are paying _them_ money for your traffic you should have some say in how they rate the connection. Then again, you probably _want_ _your_ mail to come in via uunet... So now you have to mark your downstream sites at a "lower" effective throughput in the maps to divert mail to them via less expensive links... (This goes on and on and on). [ ... ] > Why these came to here to get forwarded is anyones guess. (Who is udem.cdn > anyway?). No, it's pathalias' guess. (and it's U de Montreal) > But UUNET can apparently re-route them appropriately, without rerouting > legitimate mail if we have a better "domain". So for example if we were > to become .van.bc.ca all mail to ..!van-bc!.. and bc.ca would be rerouted, > (probably via ubc-vision). Mail to ...van.bc.ca would arrive safe and > sound directly here. Again, all of this depends on how your map entry is set up. 'van-bc' does NOT have to appear anywhere, as long as people know '.van.bc.ca' (as a domain) is reachable via 'uunet'. > We need .ca *NOW* !!!! Not next year. We needed it last year. No slight meant here, but the UBC/EAN people have their own mailer and domain to work with. The rest of us (*I* think) are getting tired of waiting for them to pass judgement on what's good for the rest of us. The UUCP community in this country can work with the other (physical) networks to setup the .CA damain NOW, without impacting the .CDN network in a negative way - gateways have worked before and will work again. (God help me, but 'ncc' would become a gateway if that's what it takes) The biggest issue we must deal with currently is how to interface with the Internet. Any Canadian backbone site *must* have good (X.25?) Internet connections for forwarding mail. How we spread out from the "backbone" has yet to be resolved. TCNET is an interesting concept, but I think it will only work if it's implemented similar to the European or Australian networks - ie. the user pays for the traffic. This could be via X.25, or via "toll-free" 800 lines (charged back at the discounted rates). In many cases, the 800 lines will be much cheaper than dedicated Datapac service. In any event, the charges could be spread back through the downstream sitees, resulting in an fair pricing scheme for everyone. Hopefully, this would also encourage sites to take advantage of NNTP and Ihave/Sendme in the Bnews software distribution to cut down on the amount of traffic currently being moved over USENET. Yes, I TOO am tired of waiting for CDNNet to dictate what is "good for me." Let's get serious about getting .CA HAPPENING NOW! --lyndon
demco@ubc-ean.UUCP (09/19/87)
Representatives from each network are actively working on setting up the domain. It's not a simple task. We're almost there. Registering a subdomain under the Canadian domain is only going to give you a widely recognized name. It won't automatically give you access to anything. That's a separate matter, perhaps best resolved on a network by network basis. For example, if you expect to communicate with the Internet you will have to find an organization which is willing to forward mail to you, and you will have to find a way to actually exchange mail. In other words, we're setting up a Canadian domain, not an internetwork. An internetwork is a good topic for discussion, but it's not going to materialize the moment CA starts being used. Don't expect a naming scheme to solve connectivity and cost distribution problems. John Demco CDNnet
sl@van-bc.UUCP (09/20/87)
In article <2100@ubc-ean.UUCP> John Demco <demco@ean.ubc.cdn> writes: >Representatives from each network are actively working on setting up the >domain. It's not a simple task. We're almost there. Almost there? As in "Almost there, only a couple more weeks." or as in "Almost there, only a couple more months!". A firm statement of intent showing a brief outline of your plans and a time schedule which you believe you can keep would be (I think) very much appreciated. We were "Almost there" last spring too as I remember. >Registering a subdomain under the Canadian domain is only going to give you >a widely recognized name. It won't automatically give you access to anything. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which as a loyal, flag waving Canadian is what I would like to have. >That's a separate matter, perhaps best resolved on a network by network >basis. For example, if you expect to communicate with the Internet you will >have to find an organization which is willing to forward mail to you, and >you will have to find a way to actually exchange mail. I've had that in place since June! The problem is that with using the current ".uucp" type of map entry I'm getting mail to forward which should be going through other channels. Making me, for example, an ersazt mail forwarder for your network (cdnnet). It's not that I particulary mind doing it, but I only poll UUNET once every two or three days (as my pocket book allows) so the service via here is terrible. >In other words, we're setting up a Canadian domain, not an internetwork. An >internetwork is a good topic for discussion, but it's not going to >materialize the moment CA starts being used. Don't expect a naming scheme to >solve connectivity and cost distribution problems. I'm not. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (09/20/87)
In article <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> Rayan Zachariassen <rayan> writes: > >It'd be a bit difficult for Rick to set up a .bc.ca seeing as that >a .ca already exists, and he isn't the person responsible for it >(John Demco is); and John isn't likely to set up anything until >all requirements are clear. > This is inconsistant with the expressed wilingness of UUNET to distribute to a .bc.ca subdomain. Perhaps you mean you request he refrain from doing so until you get the top-level domain set up? >We're in the final throes of doing this now. The registration forms >etc. exist in draft form and have been discussed. I'm still trying >to get the namespace split up in a consistent manner (anything that >decreases the namespace explosion problem, is better than everything >at the second level...), and things in general are progressing. > Your aims are worthy, but I fail to see any progress. If you plan to provide administration of the Canadian domain, perhaps you would be so kind as to state your plans publicly (ie, in this forum), in sufficent detail to allow the majority of canadian sites to consider and discuss them. For goodness sakes! Post your discussion draft and criteria. My personal opinion is that your heart is in the right place, but you're keeping me in the dark about plans which directly affect me, and hat is probably *not* a good thing to do. This is canada, we have a tradition of negotiating things, not springing a fait acompli.. --dave (Gentle readers: The last comment may be regarded as a flame directed at more than one person/group: if your ears are burning, you may conclude that I'm addressing you. Other persons need not feel insulted, unless you particularly wanted to be flamed (;-)) -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
lamy@utegc.UUCP (09/22/87)
In article <1422@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: > This is inconsistant with the expressed wilingness of UUNET to distribute >to a .bc.ca subdomain. Perhaps you mean you request he refrain from >doing so until you get the top-level domain set up? What happens when a BitNet site sends to .bc.ca? A European X.400 site or a CDNNET site? An Arpa site -- in this case, who is the authoritative name server, and how does it get informed of .ca sites not on the Arpanet? As much as I would like to have a canadian domain now, I'd much prefer having one that *works*. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.toronto.edu, lamy@ai.toronto.cdn AI Group, Dept of Computer Science lamy%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {uunet,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!lamy
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (09/24/87)
In article <8709220156.AA20159@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@utegc.UUCP writes: > >In article <1422@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: >> This is inconsistent with the expressed wilingness of UUNET to distribute >>to a .bc.ca subdomain. Perhaps you mean you request he refrain from >>doing so until you get the top-level domain set up? > >What happens when a BitNet site sends to .bc.ca? A European X.400 site or a >CDNNET site? An Arpa site -- in this case, who is the authoritative name >server, and how does it get informed of .ca sites not on the Arpanet? If the message is coming via the ARPAnet, or being gatewayed by any subnet which sees UUNET as the gateway into (what used to be?) usenet, then it will be directed by UUNET to the proper recipient. For more precise information about the current connectivity between the domains and what is/was .uucp, send mail to sri-nic.arpa or UUNET and ask what the main internets are doing. --dave ((:-)) c-b ps: UUNET and ARPA are probably trademerks of the U.S. Gummerment, who funds them. -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
rayan@utegc.UUCP (09/26/87)
In article <1422@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: # In article <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> Rayan Zachariassen <rayan> writes: # > # >It'd be a bit difficult for Rick to set up a .bc.ca seeing as that # >a .ca already exists, and he isn't the person responsible for it # >(John Demco is); and John isn't likely to set up anything until # >all requirements are clear. # > # # This is inconsistant with the expressed wilingness of UUNET to distribute # to a .bc.ca subdomain. Perhaps you mean you request he refrain from # doing so until you get the top-level domain set up? The original message, from Stuart, implied that Rick would be happy to set up a .CA, and a .BC.CA under it. I'm pretty sure he said that because he didn't (doesn't) realize a .CA already has been registered. UUNET is irrelevant. As regards your other comments... # This is canada, we have a tradition of negotiating things, not # springing a fait acompli.. I think it judicious to clarify and emphasize something: The private discussion about how to organize .CA has not been going on in a vacuum. Neither vis-a-vis representation from interested people including those vocal in this group, nor by ignoring the existence of different sets of interests and points of view, particularly as expressed by the different networks. Negotiations in that environment have been going on for a long (long, ...) time. Early this summer, it was suggested by a group of you (at Usenix) to take the discussion public on the basis of a joint position paper from the network reps. This happened to be rejected, partly on the basis that it would bring us back to square one, and wouldn't accomplish anything. I don't agree with the former, but I can understand the latter; arguing on the net (for example) has rarely accomplished anything but raising temperatures. It is not the best forum to make decisions in. It is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done. Don't make the mistake of assuming those views are all there is to it, nor that the net is representative of (or even reaches) interested parties. I think we'll end up with something reasonably acceptable to most people; try not to prejudge it. rayan
rayan@utegc.UUCP (09/26/87)
In article <1471@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: # In article <8709220156.AA20159@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@utegc.UUCP writes: # >What happens when a BitNet site sends to .bc.ca? A European X.400 site or a # >CDNNET site? An Arpa site -- in this case, who is the authoritative name # >server, and how does it get informed of .ca sites not on the Arpanet? # # If the message is coming via the ARPAnet, or being gatewayed by any # subnet which sees UUNET as the gateway into (what used to be?) usenet, # then it will be directed by UUNET to the proper recipient. Usenet and .CA sites (or even UUCP sites under .CA) are completely different things. If appropriate, messages will arrive (from the Internet) at UUNET for a .CA subdomain, because the .CA authority has arranged for it. This is an example of something the individual subdomain cannot affect on its own, in this case whether a subscriber to UUNET or not. rayan
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (09/28/87)
In article <8709260429.AA22350@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> rayan@utegc.UUCP writes:
< Early this summer, it was suggested by a group of you
<(at Usenix) to take the discussion public on the basis of a joint position
<paper from the network reps. This happened to be rejected, partly on the
<basis that it would bring us back to square one, and wouldn't accomplish
<anything. I don't agree with the former, but I can understand the latter;
<arguing on the net (for example) has rarely accomplished anything but
<raising temperatures. It is not the best forum to make decisions in. It
<is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done. Don't make
<the mistake of assuming those views are all there is to it, nor that the
<net is representative of (or even reaches) interested parties.
<
<I think we'll end up with something reasonably acceptable to most people;
<try not to prejudge it.
Sorry, ryan, but the people prejudging in this case are the members
of Usenix who rejected public discussions.
The machines on the net are privatly owned: Usenix does not
represent or claim to represent their views. (flame on) If someone
from Usenix has changed this, my managment will probably want to know,
(flame off, smiley on) so they can start paying Usenix and not DEC
(smiley off).
To misquote Thoreau, "I am not a mamber of any association I have
not joined".
In any case, someone has made a decision after being misinformed.
Regrettable, but it happens. Do try to inform the (inter)net,
however, since it is the customer for any possible domain substructure.
And I'm sorry about speaking harshly to you...
--dave (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.rayan@utegc.UUCP (09/29/87)
In article <1490@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: # In article <8709260429.AA22350@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> rayan@utegc.UUCP writes: # Sorry, ryan, but the people prejudging in this case are the members # of Usenix who rejected public discussions. # The machines on the net are privatly owned: Usenix does not # represent or claim to represent their views. (flame on) If someone # from Usenix has changed this, my managment will probably want to know, # (flame off, smiley on) so they can start paying Usenix and not DEC # (smiley off). Sorry, dve, but who said anything about Usenix members deciding on anything? A small group of interested attendees at the Usenix Conference made the proposal, I presented it to the other network reps, and they rejected it. Make sure you attribute the right (non-)action to the right people. Any similarity between Usenix Conference attendees and Usenix organization members or representatives, is purely coincidental. # In any case, someone has made a decision after being misinformed. Not misinformed, misjudged perhaps. Though I'm beginning to think they were right. # Do try to inform the (inter)net, # however, since it is the customer for any possible domain substructure. # And I'm sorry about speaking harshly to you... Gee Whiz, flame wars! I don't want to take part in any. The reason I haven't published specifics yet, is that specifics are not yet in a publishable form. Hopefully this will be the case before the end of the week, but I am not jumping the gun. If you don't like what you will see in some major aspect, you can start howling then. I doubt it will have much effect, because the major features of the eventual result will be a compromise position between the extremist desires of the different nets, and that will be hard to move in any direction. Howling about details will probably be heard (everyone learns with experience), but are details that important? The people at GEAC had a chance to comment and affect matters directly, when I asked your sysadmin (and a whole bunch of others) about these things some time ago. Yours did reply. rayan
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <8709291348.AA28905@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>, rayan@utegc.UUCP writes: > > The people at GEAC had a chance to comment and affect matters directly, when > I asked your sysadmin (and a whole bunch of others) about these things some > time ago. Yours did reply. I remember being asked to decide between .CA and .CAN . I do NOT remember being asked about anything that pertains to the discussion here. MANY MANY times I have tried to get information on what was happening with .CA et al. The replies were *always* along the lines of "we're real close now - watch for an announcement next week." Not once was I asked for input on anything other than the domain name, despite many repeated requests to be kept informed of the progress being made (over a TWO YEAR period). This discussion is leaning towards open warfare. If the "network representatives" want to retain any amount of credibility with the Canadian usenet community they should start posting some status reports soon, and start listening to the feedback they get from these postings.
glee@cognos.uucp (Godfrey Lee) (10/05/87)
In article <8709260429.AA22350@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> rayan@utegc.UUCP writes: > Early this summer, it was suggested by a group of you >(at Usenix) to take the discussion public on the basis of a joint position >paper from the network reps. This happened to be rejected, partly on the >basis that it would bring us back to square one, and wouldn't accomplish >anything. I would like to point out that I was there at the meeting at Usenix. It seems to me that there was a number of people there wanting the issue discussed more fully on the net, and I don't remember a consensus then to reject that. I also recall that there was a suggestion which was accepted, which is to take the current proposal, arrived at by whatever group, to the net for a full debate. > I don't agree with the former, but I can understand the latter; >arguing on the net (for example) has rarely accomplished anything but >raising temperatures. It is not the best forum to make decisions in. Decisions cannot be made on the net, but responsible decisions cannot be made without listening to all views, including those of the net. So I don't agree that discussions on the net are pointless. >It is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done. Sorry for being sarcastic, but how can you have meaningful discussions without different views? > Don't make >the mistake of assuming those views are all there is to it, nor that the >net is representative of (or even reaches) interested parties. For some of us on the uucp net, this is the only forum. We are not privy to the various university networks around, nor do we have access to arpanet. I think the universities are probably the ones with the time and energy to drive this domain effort, but there are us people in the "real" world who are also interested! >I think we'll end up with something reasonably acceptable to most people; >try not to prejudge it. > >rayan I have not pre-judged it so far, and I am still waiting for the results of your efforts. I applaud you for your efforts and your thankless job, but I do think that you seem to have just a bit too strong of a personal bias for someone who is trying to be representing the uucp net population at large. This is just a personal observation, please do not take it as a flame. ===== Now, just to state my PERSONAL view: I really don't care too much about which scheme gets chosen, so long as: 1. There is one scheme. 2. It is simple. 3. Software is provided/available to handle it. The last point is very important, the current software don't work for me. Admittedly I have only spent a couple of weeks at it, got uumail to work, but couldn't tame Sun's sendmail to work with smail. I am no guru, and am generally lazy, so I prefer for someone else to work these things out. I know this sounds selfish, but I suspect I am not alone. -- Godfrey Lee P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1440 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee CANADA K1G 3Z4
rayan@utegc.UUCP (10/09/87)
In article <1528@cognos.UUCP> glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) writes:
# I would like to point out that I was there at the meeting at Usenix. It seems
# to me that there was a number of people there wanting the issue discussed
# more fully on the net, and I don't remember a consensus then to reject that.
#
# I also recall that there was a suggestion which was accepted, which is to take
# the current proposal, arrived at by whatever group, to the net for a full
# debate.
I thought this suggestion was part of what I mentioned before, a suggestion
that the net reps put together a document and start up discussion in all the
appropriate fora (sp?). The net discussion was supposed to be based on that
background. Since it was nixed, no discussion was initiated.
# Decisions cannot be made on the net, but responsible decisions cannot be made
# without listening to all views, including those of the net. So I don't agree
# that discussions on the net are pointless.
Seeing views on the net isn't pointless. Flaming is.
# >It is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done.
#
# Sorry for being sarcastic, but how can you have meaningful discussions without
# different views?
But that's the whole point, we/I *have* access to different views, even in the
absence of discussions on the net.
# that you seem to have just a bit too strong of a personal bias for someone who
# is trying to be representing the uucp net population at large.
Certainly I have a strong personal bias. That is why it is good that I have
other people's opinions and reasoning to support the position I have been
taking with the other net reps in this thing. The stages in the "negotiations"
have been: pushing for our "ideal" (which also happened to be my ideal),
pleading against our worst-case scenario, and now compromising on something
with the underlying features of our "ideal" in terms of namespace breakup etc.,
although it is based in a somewhat different view of the world.
Point is that I've been falling back from the specifics of what people want,
to their underlying reasoning for why they want it that way.
Besides all this, the positions and biases of the other network reps are sure
to (more than) balance out my biases.
Anyway, on wednesday or so next week, I'll be posting a simple proposal for
how the local UUCP network's interface to the CA authority should be (a la the
UUCP "Zone" in the U.S.). You'll all have the opportunity to comment on it then.
Btw, this should be an indication to people that its coming down to the wire...
rayan