🚀 go-pugleaf

In connection with the recent discussion on whether or not all the new
domain-style host names should be in the NIC table, my name was invoked
in such a way as to suggest that I supported a position which in fact I
oppose.  I am certain this was simply an innocent misunderstanding.  In
any case, let me set the record straight.

(1) I believe that EVERY host name which is used in a mailing address
    should appear in BOTH the domain data base AND the NIC host name
    table.  Any host which doesn't have its name in both places is inev-
    itably going to encounter problems getting mail from some portion of
    the net.

    When I posted my celebrated host-name study (and the accompanying
    set of messages to individual errant hosts) last month, by the way,
    among the kinds of hosts I flagged were those using domain-style
    names that didn't appear in the NIC table.

    I do NOT support the idea that hosts should be kept out of the NIC
    host name table in order to put pressure on hosts which haven't yet
    converted their software.

    (a) Just because a given host is still using the NIC table does not
	necessarily mean that its administrators are lazy, apathetic, or
	incompetent.

    (b) In the case of the MILNET, for instance, it has been correctly
	pointed out that MILNET hosts are not required to convert (or is
	it, "are required not to convert"?) to the domain system for
	some time yet.

    (c) And in any case, whenever we try to exert pressure in this way,
	the real losers in the end are the end users who are unable to
	get their mail through.

(2) If an organization has a second-level domain, I believe that they
    should be allowed to assign that second-level name to one of their
    hosts (so that it can act as a mail gateway for the organization)
    and have that name listed in the NIC table in addition to the host's
    regular third- or lower-level name.

    I am aware of at least one organization whose mail guru told me that
    the NIC had refused to list both "xxx.COM" and "yyy.xxx.COM" (for
    the appropriate values of "xxx" and "yyy") as host names for its
    mail gateway machine.  Perhaps this request was refused for some
    other, unrelated reason.  If, however, it is in fact the NIC policy
    to turn down such requests on princple, I believe this policy should
    either be defended publicly and cogently, or else discarded.

    Actually, I suspect this policy is no longer being enforced by the
    NIC (if indeed it ever was) -- since a quick scan of the newest host
    name table shows several instances of second- and third-level names
    for the same host -- including at least one recent addition.

-- 
Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683
	3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA
	ARPA:   wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU  -or-  wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
	UUCP:   ...!(ucbvax,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales