NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/domain/16

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 5.4 KB | 121 lines

Newsgroups: can.domain
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca!timk
From: [e-mail] (Tim Kuehn)
Subject: Reserving a sitename under .ca with a "blanket application"
Organization: TDK Consulting Services
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:35:23 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 110

What I would like to see would be a way to reserve a standard
organization name for all geographic sites under .ca. Then, when
the time came to bring a "orgname" branch office in a given city
online, all that would need to be done would be to notify the domain
comittee of this new site, get an MX forwarder for the site, and tie
it into the network. Since all co-ordination and admin would be taken
care of under the umbrella of the parent organization, this (theoretically)
shouldn't require a new application, but rather an amendment to a
previously submitted "blanket" application.

For example, an organization has offices Winnepeg Manitoba, and Waterloo
Ontario, among other places. Under a "blanket-application" scheme, when
each site comes on-line, all that would need to be done would be for the
central administrator to determine a FQDN based on ISO approved abbreviations
for the geopolitical area, notify the domain registration committee about
the new name, and arrange for an MX-forwarder. For these two sites, this
would yield FQDNs of

    orgname.winnepeg.mb.ca
    orgname.waterloo.on.ca

By reserving "orgname" over all of Canada, expansion of an organization
into new geopolitical areas with the area under ".ca" would be consistent
and easily accomplished, and prevent name-space collissions (and it's
resulting confusion) between organizational entities.

The reason for this is as follows:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>The current approach to use of the US domain is similiar to what the CA-domain
>committee is moving too. Assigning names based on political geography. It is
>implemented a bit differently and possibly a bit more consistently. For example
>it does not appear to allow ibm.us but would require ibm.armonk.ny.us.

>CA guidelines allow xxx.ca, xxx.prov.ca or xxx.municp.prov.ca depending on
>the size and scope of your business/organization etc.

As I mentioned briefly in "Domain Naming Conventions", I have a client with
a national prescence over most of Canada, which is also expanding into the
former USSR and Guatemala, and they're just getting into electronic mail
via the Internet/USENET. The naming convention that should be used in this
new expansion is a bit of a puzzle. Which of the following would be best?

    city[.prov].orgname.ca,
    orgname.city[.prov].ca, or
    city[.prov].country.orgname.org

Since they're already comitted to setting up sites in Lviv and Dnepropetrovsk
in Ukraina, whatever naming convention is used would needs to be consistent
over all sites/countries names are applied to. This would lead to the
conclusion of using the following convention:

    orgname.city[.prov].country     or
    city[.prov].country.orgname.org

Which leads to

    orgname.city.prov.ca    for Canadian sites, and
    orgname.city.ua        for Ukranian sites
    orgname.city.gtm     for Guatemalana sites

or
    city.prov.ca.orgname.org     for Canadian sites, and
    city.ua.orgname.org         for Ukranian sites
    city.gtm.orgname.org         for Guatemalan sites


The conditions as I see it are as follows:

1) Using the orgname.city[.prov].country form
   - makes more sense
   - is easier to remember
   - is consistent over all cities, provinces, and countries this
     organization has or will have a prescence in.

2) Registering under the .ca domain would requires submitting a domain
   registration/application for each and every site, with it's attendant
   cost in fees and time to put the application together.

2) The "associate" offices often as not are run by staff or volunteers
   who's expertise is *not* with computers or email. Administration
   work for these "associate" offices *must* be kept to an *absolute*
   minimum.

3) Having a domain under ".org" should make it easier to deal with all
   admin, network connections, and forwarding at the central site
   responsible for the ".orgname.org" domain.

4) There wouldn't be the admin headaches or application fees associated
   with running an app past a domain  "Czar" or committe each time a new
   site was added.

5) Using the ".org" would result in having to use a naming convention which
   is the exact opposite of the convention used under the ".ca" naming
   convention. Such "counter-to-convention" naming practices should be
   avoided if at all possible.

While I like the idea of registering the sites under ".ca" in order to get
a consistent geo-political naming convention, the possibility of having to
submit an application for each and every site makes me lean more in favor
of going under ".org", barring an amendable "blanket application" process
which would greatly facilitate the assignment of domains for trans-canada
and international organizations.

Comments and criticisms are appreciated.

 +-----------+-----------------------------------+---------------------------+
 | Tim Kuehn | TDK Consulting Services           | [e-mail] |
 | <><       | Ask me about news and mail in KW! | (519)-888-0766            |
 +-----------+-----------------------------------+---------------------------+