MRC@SIMTEL20.ARPA.UUCP (06/30/86)
Here's another vote to remove the non-domained aliases from HOSTS.TXT. I'd like to see each host have a maximum of two names; the current domain name form (which should appear on all mail) and for a while the old ".ARPA" form. There is no excuse for any host which doesn't play the mail game to have more than one name (let's abolish TAC nicknames!). I would also like to propose that "NIC" be made a new top-level entity, and that the current SRI-NIC.ARPA machine be renamed simply "NIC" instead of something like "NIC.SRI.COM". The NIC is at SRI because SRI has the contract to run it, but in the (probably unlikely) event that SRI loses the contract there will still need to be a NIC. -------
jordan@TITAN.ARC.NASA.GOV.UUCP (06/30/86)
I agree with Mark and Rick -- the non-domained aliases are just a sad excuse for not doing the right thing. I'm not sure, however about the restriction to two names -- some hosts have extra names for their plain domain name (ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU -> Berkeley.EDU, etc.) ... As for SRI-NIC.ARPA -> NIC, maybe it should be NIC.ORG, since the NIC (the organisation, not the machine) may in the future have more than one machine (maybe PCs or whatever) under their control. I agree, however, that it should not be in SRI's namespace. A question though ... my reading of RFC921 doesn't make it at all clear about the MILNET's obligation in all of this. I understand that DDN-PMO has yet to establish a schedule for the *implementation* part of the Domain system, but what about the naming part of it? It seems to say that the MILNET is on the same schedule for changing to "domained names" (which could, by definition, include .ARPA) ... If you change to .ARPA, you can certainly change to one of the other top-level domains, and we can be through with .ARPA once and for all. I was under the impression that the main problem was mailers, etc. that didn't understand "addresses with dots" ... certainly .ARPA has a dot. Is there in fact a requirement for the MILNET sites to join one of the non-dot-arpa top-level domains? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that part of the requirements for getting a domain is to provide nameservice for it (whether or not *you* use the server for address resolution I think is the crux of the "We don't care; we don't have to -- We're MILNET" argument). Why are new sites getting non-domained addresses? Also, to echo Mark, what about these TACs? /jordan
STJOHNS@SRI-NIC.ARPA.UUCP (06/30/86)
We on the MILNET side of the house have been waiting patiently for those on the research side of the house to work out all the bugs in the domain system. And there are BUGS... err... "service deficiencies". You will be pleased to know that this subject is the major topic for the next meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force. This should result in fallout which should shove the MILNET towards the domain system. Mike StJohns
mark@cbosgd.att.com (Mark Horton) (07/01/86)
>I'm not sure, however about the >restriction to two names -- some hosts have extra names for their plain >domain name (ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU -> Berkeley.EDU, etc.) ... > >As for SRI-NIC.ARPA -> NIC, maybe it should be NIC.ORG, It seems to me these are two examples of the same problem: a host which is organizationally three layers down in the tree, but which has responsibility for a higher level domain (Berkeley.EDU in the first case, ROOT in the second.) As such, I think the folks who run the machine should decide where to put the primary name (and I understand the NIC has chosen NIC.SRI.COM) with appropriate nicknames. Thus, the root (and also COM, EDU, and GOV) are in effect nicknames for the NIC. Whether they choose to support them as explicit nicknames is again up to them. Mark