[12538] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: About the creation of new 3-letter domain(s)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Barrett)
Fri May 20 18:07:49 1994
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 12:07:21 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405200150.AA07547@world.std.com>
Barry Shein said:
> >Around here, I don't think there's any official standard way of grouping
> >the digits.
>
> Well, then it doesn't matter in this case, so pick any convention
> which also works with the proposed standard (i.e. don't make the least
> significant tuple 3 digits.)
The very fact that there's no official standard for grouping digits in a
phone number strikes me as a difficulty for your scheme. Given a phone
number, how will anybody know how to choose between the many possible
domainised forms? For example, does the phone number 1234567 map to the
domain 4567.123? 67.45.123? something else?
It seems to me that, if you want to use telephone numbers, then you
might as well go the whole hog and use stuff like 7.6.5.4.3.2.1,
as tpc.int did. Sure, it's ugly, but at least the rules are
clear. The ugliness could be alleviated to some extent by syntax
reminiscemt of domain literals; users could type stuff like
[reverse-digits-44-71-1234567] in their email addresses (To:
remote-printer@[reverse-digits-44-71-1234567].tpc.int) and software
could convert it (To: remote-printer@7.6.5.4.3.2.1.1.7.4.4.tpc.int).
--apb (Alan Barrett)
