|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 18:51:20 -0400 From: Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net> To: michael@memra.com, paul@vix.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu, usdomreg@isi.edu > >Or, even better, for major metropolitan areas like SF, LA, NYC, > >CHI etc the name central city can be used instead of state. Michael Dillon wrote: >This would seem to indicate that geographical domains are a bad idea and >that domain names should be based on some characteristic that is less >likely to change over time. The geographical position (modulo state/metro area) of an organization or an individual _is_ the most stable characteristic, on average. Moving long-distance is hard and few people or companies do that more than two times in their life. What i was talking about is that using state names does not provide sufficient granularity. It makes sense to use "locales" instead of historical administrative domains. I.e. a person living in Kansas City will likely to think of it as of a single city, not something between Missouri and Kansas. And, anyway, the goal is to make hierarchy deeper, without making it hard to use. <city>.<state>.us is too long to type. <state>.us is not enough; so here goes my proposal of "extended states". --vadim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |