🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <1993Feb16.052640@xenitec.on.ca> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
> >I submitted the first (as far as I know) CA subdomain registration
> >application for an individual (ie, "residential person") today.
> >As the application was for mohan.ottawa.on.ca, this lead to a discussion of 
> >exactly what would be appropriate for the "orgname" portion of the subdomain 
> >name, bearing in mind that there might indeed be more than a single "mohan" in a given city, ...
> >eah2} Do we simply number them ourselves (I hate using numbers as ID), ...
> >What opinions does the Canadian networking community hold on this issue?
 
In article <1993Feb16.173239.13951@sol.UVic.CA> klassen@sol.UVic.CA 
	(Melvin Klassen) writes:
> If the individual has a surname of "Mohan", 
> then I have great doubts about accepting the requested registration.

I'm inclined to agree that the name shouldn't be just given out on a
first-come basis.  If that was the case, things could look pretty 
messy, and there would need to be arbitrary rules to disambiguiate
common names.  Also, a policy for recycling/reusing names should be
seriously thought out.  What if mohan.ottawa.on.ca leaves the net?  
Can that name be reused if another Mohan comes along?  How long must
it remain dormant, if at all?  Indivisuals are more likely to come
and go from the net than organizations and companies (I think).

I would probably be inclined to choose something that is a combination
of a name and number.  Something like the first N letters of the last
name, coupled with a M digit number.  Perhaps N=3 and M=5 would be good.
That way, as long as there are less than 100000 people with similar 
last names in a geographic area, there will be no conflict.  

If we wanted to get real fancy, the M digit number wouldn't be a
simple serial number, but a unique number conforming to a given
checksum...  That way, a simple transposition or typo would become
an invalid address, rather than being delivered to the wrong
address.  

Another idea that I had just thought of, is to use the postal code, and 
adding a name to a 5th (is it legal?) field.  
	i.e. claus.h0h0h0.ottawa.on.ca
If the 5th field is not legal, perhaps an underscore or dash can be
used to append the postal code to the name.
	i.e. claus_h0h0h0.ottawa.on.ca

If more than one of the same name live on the same block, (i.e. share
the same postal code) serial numbers (2 or 3 digit) can be appended to 
the surname.  I think dealing with a name conflict in a given block is 
a lot easier than in the whole metropolitan area!  

Of the two I have suggested, I kind of perfer the first idea, mostly
because I thought of it first, but the second one has the simplicity
which I also like I a lot.

Comments?

-- 
Tak Ariga, Dictionary of Old English Project, University of Toronto, Canada
           tak@doe.utoronto.ca  tak@doe.toronto.edu  utdoe!tak