NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/domain/15

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 4.1 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: can.domain
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!van-bc!sl
From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Domain naming conventions
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:28:50 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 79

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

>1) Addresses created under this proposal are a lot easier to get wrong
>than under the more verbose naming convention. How much easier is it to
>hear over the phone "N2J" when the speaker really said "M2K"? This is
>particularly true in cases where international mail is concerned, and
>you're conversing with someone who has only had to deal with numeric digits
>(as in the USA).

You pointed out the transcription problem is a red herring. But three
digits are easier to get right than some rather larger number.

>It's a *lot* easier to remember that "The company is TDK Consulting
>Services, he's in the Region/City of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada"
>and associate that with [e-mail] than to associate
>it with "[e-mail]"

Well actually I would suggest that [e-mail] is sufficent. And is

    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]

eight characters less to remember or type.


>2) Figuring out what the destination's postal code is without a postal-code
>book is nearly impossible. Postal codes are *way* too cryptic to use in
>naming conventions. If the "three tokens max" scheme is to be applied,
>then it *must* use some easily decipherable and rememberable naming convention
>to go with it.

Phone the post office. Look at your correspondents business card. Give them
a phone call.

>3) Postal codes (believe it or not) assignments are NOT static for a given
>address over all time. The can change depending on changes in the city
>planning, street re-arrangements, or other odd re-shuffling that may take
>place according to Canada Posts's whims.

There is little change when you just look at the first three chars.

There has been some mention of how do specify the municipality. Or abbreviate
it. There doesn't seem to be any official list of abbreviations. Well the
post office has implemented the Postal Code such that the first three chars
work admirally in this respect.

For example how do you specifiy Portage la Prairie?


>Which most people can remember quite easily after using it a couple of
>times. Why? Because the naming convention for the most part makes sense
>and goes along with what we're able to associate between an Organization/
>Individual and their location/profession. Errors due to the numeric
>components of the address cause the most problems for addressers since
>they're harder to remember. These have to be dealt with by the humans in
>the loop so the snail-mail gets delivered.
>
>For obvious reasons, we have no humans in the loop where electronic mail
>is concerned, so any naming convention we come up with of necessity must
>generate names that are easy to remember, even if it's a bit on the
>verbose side.

I am also of the opinion that it will be impossible to satisfy everyone
with *one* way of doing things. Is there any technical problem with
supporting some small number of different ways to select a name. I.e. you
get your choice of tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca OR tdkcs.n2j.ca OR some other
scheme that doesn't clash and is desired by some large body of users.

For another example. Perhaps you are a divorced person who is trying to
hide from an abusive spouse. How do we allow someone to have a domain address
that meets these requirements? Obviously neither of the above two schemes
would be suitable.

--
Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd