[12370] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: About the creation of new 3-letter domain(s)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Mon May 16 22:21:06 1994
To: klensin@infoods.unu.edu
Cc: PAUL@tdr.com, PVM@isi.edu, bigz@rice.edu, com-priv@psi.com,
hostmaster@internic.net, hostmaster@nic.ddn.mil, ja@ess.cs.ucl.ac.uk,
namedroppers@rs.internic.net, pullen@darpa.mil, postel@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 16 May 94 16:16:29 -0400.
<58595.klensin@infoods.unu.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 13:47:26 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu>
John,
Fair points. I fully expect to have to thrash the details out, but I
think that we need SOME sort of scheme that has the general
characteristics I'm suggesting. If anyone has an alternative that they
think is viable, I'd love to hear it.
---- Included message:
In message Mon, 16 May 1994 10:23:51 -0700,
dcrocker@Mordor.Stanford.EDU (Dave Crocker) writes:
> [apt/ste.]number.street.city.region.postal-code.country
>
reasons that range from privacy to security to local custom and general
We have a dilemma. People give out their postal and phone contact
information all the time. Why should email be different? To the
extent that someone really needs a blind, then p.o.numbers or the
equivalent can be defined, just as we do in the postal world. Remember
that the MX record for the recipient is public information.
I.e., for those with particularly extreme privacy concerns, yes we need
to put in a special mechanism.
Post office
boxes, private mail drops, rural route numbers, and just house names (been
to Carmel lately?), etc. all serve as surrogates for
[apt/ste.]number.street
My primary point is that we have a global addressing scheme, as defined
for postal recpients. I'm suggesting we use it. I was not really
believing that my terse representation of it was complete. (For
example, real postal codes go in different places depending on
country. For our purposes, I'd hope we standardize the format more
that that, but do assume that things are more elaborate than I
represented.)
And, while the postal system in a given area might be a natural registrar
(they control the postal codes, know where various entities actually are,
and postal codes in many countries now identify rather small geographic/
population area), I think any of us can think of good reasons for not
turning network domain registration over to those people.
Let me emphasize that I am very much NOT suggesting 'turning
registration over' to the postal system in the sense of creating a new
registration system. I am suggesting that we re-use the EXISTING
registrations. They're there. They works. It can be used with no
additional assignment activity.
Dave
