david@elroy.UUCP (01/30/87)
I have a question on the latest trend of domainizing of UUCP hostnames. I am all for using domains but it appears that current trends of domain naming of UUCP hosts violate the RFC that was written on domains. My site is on the Arpa/Internet and uses a domain of .jpl.nasa.gov. According to the RFC we are responsible of meeting all the requirements of the domain above us, nasa.gov, which in turn is responsible to its "parent", .gov. In setting up our machines we contacted nasa.gov's primary administrator and registered "jpl" as a subdomain and designated a primary administrator for that subdomain. I have been seeing a LARGE number of hosts with names like foo.widget.com in widget corporation. When I make a request to the ".com" domain authority, SRI-NIC, they have NEVER heard of it. Doesn't this violate the RFC by failing to register with the domain above it? Shouldn't there be new top level domains that dont confict with the DDN top level domains? With the old ".uucp" I would know to use pathalias to find the machine, now I have to hunt around between the DDN nameservers and pathalias to find out how to get somewhere. -- David Robinson elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu ARPA david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (new) seismo!cit-vax!elroy!david UUCP Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway!
guy@gorodish.UUCP (01/31/87)
>Doesn't this violate the RFC by failing to register with >the domain above it? Yes - but are these hosts on the Internet? If not, there's not much you can do about violations of the RFC; the Internet Patrol can't really pull them over.... >Shouldn't there be new top level domains that dont confict with the DDN >top level domains? No, there should be some control over hosts that purport to belong to a subdomain of one of those domains. The theory is, I believe, that those hosts (i.e., hosts not on the Internet but registered in some subdomain of a DDN top-level domain) are really supposed to register with somebody and get an MX record for them stuck into some name server's database; I'd be inclined to say that if somebody just invents a domain name that looks like a legal name, but doesn't register and get MXed, they should be sued for false advertising. It may look cute and properly Official, but it's not clear it helps get mail moved around, which is the whole purpose of this exercise.
jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (01/31/87)
David Robinson <david@elroy.UUCP> writes:
Shouldn't there be new top level domains that dont confict with
the DDN top level domains? With the old ".uucp" I would know to
use pathalias to find the machine, now I have to hunt around
between the DDN nameservers and pathalias to find out how to
get somewhere.
Ay, thars the rub.
Cardinal rule of domains: names don't imply routes (let alone transport).
So, the problem becomes one where the main paradigm of mailer
resolution is now obsolete. All previous attempts at having MTAs
provide a "switch" for multiple transport systems relied on the format
of the address. This is no longer valid. One good thing about it is
that it will encourage the design of better gateways. Except this has
been known for 3 years and we all (myself included) have ignored the
writing on the wall (too harsh -- we all have been too busy for it, I
know).
Given, dynamic routing in a slow network given multi-homed nodes is
a really difficult problem ... any of you hot-shot professors out there
want to sponsor me for a PhD. project? :-) :-) :-) ...
/jordanmark@cbosgd.UUCP (02/01/87)
In article <12496@sun.uucp> guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes: >>Shouldn't there be new top level domains that dont confict with the DDN >>top level domains? > >No, there should be some control over hosts that purport to belong to >a subdomain of one of those domains. The theory is, I believe, that >those hosts (i.e., hosts not on the Internet but registered in some >subdomain of a DDN top-level domain) are really supposed to register >with somebody and get an MX record for them stuck into some name >server's database; I'd be inclined to say that if somebody just >invents a domain name that looks like a legal name, but doesn't >register and get MXed, they should be sued for false advertising. It >may look cute and properly Official, but it's not clear it helps get >mail moved around, which is the whole purpose of this exercise. A properly registered UUCP domain goes through the channels and gets all the pieces in place before they start to send out mail stamped as being from their new shiny domain name. This takes 2-8 weeks, since you have to make sure the UUCP Project has your registration, the dues are paid, the NIC has approved the registration and updated their nameserver, the UUCP nameserver has the right MX, the forwarder is all set up, and the UUCP map has been published with the new domain in it. (The UUCP map, being published monthly, is probably the major potential delay here, the rest takes only about 2-3 weeks.) Unfortunately, a lot of people out there have the August posting of smail, which isn't as crystal clear on this matter as it should be. It says "contact us for current registration policies" but a lot of people are just sending in the form and assuming it's OK to start using their domain name effective with the form they send us. There may also be people out there just making up names and using them, which is kind of like me stamping my outgoing mail "White-House.GOV". Easy to do, but not very likely to work. The current forms and instructions are more explicit about this. You have to contact us (at cbosgd!stargate!uucp-query) and we send you a CURRENT information packet with an application form, dues information, and other information. (By the way, dues start at $50/year for a 3rd level domain, at $150/year for 2nd level, and we're looking into the possibility of even lower prices for home computers.) Mark Horton Director, The UUCP Project