🚀 go-pugleaf

Folksies ... please correct me if I'm wrong.

In article <1589@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabs.HP.COM (Dave Taylor) writes:
>3. The existing heirarchical system is designed to have a *very* small
>   number of different top-level domains (including .COM, .EDU, .MIL, and
>   .ORG).  One of the existing domains is ".NET" and is meant to denote
>   a gateway to a different network.  For example, the CSNET gateway for
>   the ARPA Internet is at "RELAY.CS.NET".   There is  *NO*  reason why
>   we shouldn't fit in with this scheme (e.g. .FIDO.NET) and this not only
>   means we're compatible, but that the routing software (e.g. smail) will
>   know what to do with mail to Fidonet (it will, correctly, send it to the
>   'cheapest route' Fido gateway on the system).

The .net domains are supposed to be for the control centers of
other networks.  The only machines under .cs.net are those at
the csnet-relay site.  No others.  I believe that would follow
for other networks as well.

Fido won't fit well with the current scheme.  A large number of the
machines are in foreign countries, so would easily fit into some
subdomain of that countries' domain.  ('cept, some of those countries
have no existing organization using those domain names yet ....
this could be *real* interesting..).  Other machines are home
personal machines, some are owned by some business, etc.  For 
all but home/personal machines, there are existing domains which
the machine can fit into.

Remember, domains aren't supposed to imply routes.  But putting
everybody on Fido into ".fido.net" (for instance) would be exactly
that.

The meta-lesson is that rfc920 doesn't work in the general case,
and that usenet/fidonet are close to the general case.
-- 
-----   David Herron,  cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@ms.uky.csnet
-----  (also "postmaster", "news", and the Usenet map maintainer for Kentucky.)
-----
/*EOF