[12407] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: About the creation of new 3-letter domain(s)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Tue May 17 19:11:14 1994
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 11:57:53 -0700
To: postel@isi.edu (Jon Postel)
From: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu (Dave Crocker)
Cc: nettech@crl.com, jlw@cs.columbia.edu, postel@isi.edu, PAUL@tdr.com,
namedroppers@rs.internic.net, bigz@rice.edu, com-priv@psi.com,
ja@ess.cs.ucl.ac.uk, pullen@darpa.mil, PVM@isi.edu,
hostmaster@internic.net, hostmaster@nic.ddn.mil
Jon,
Unfortunately, I believe the current geography-based scheme doesn't have
the right granularity. It resolves to the level of a city and I'm
suggesting something which self-assigns more finely than that. The goal is
to side-step name collisions. For a truly mass market operation, I believe
this is essential. I don't want to debate with the other Dave Crocker in
Sunnyvale, CA (if there were one) which of us gets the domain name. For
that matter, the current scheme doesn't give guidance about the string that
is specific to the sub-domain. This hasn't been an issue very much, since
it's usually organizations that are registering, but application to
individuals has been strange, at least.
It is certainly true that the DNS supports multiple schemas and that one
can argue that we don't need to settle on just one. I think however there
is benefit in trying to settle on one for any given "application", in this
case the personal market.
As to the appeal to your scheme, I don't debate it. I do, however, still
wonder at its administration in large scale.
At 11:30 AM 5/17/94, Jon Postel wrote:
>You favour a geographic based hierarchy, so do i. If you are in the US
>and agree, go get a name in the US domain. It already has a geographic
>hierarchy. No argument.
>
>My message yesterday was intended to be a practical suggestion for those
>who reject geographic based names, as to what an alternative might look
>like. Some people seem to like it.
Dave
+1 408 246 8253 (fax: +1 408 249 6205)
