NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/domain/28

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 5.0 KB | 108 lines

Newsgroups: can.domain
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca!timk
From: [e-mail] (Tim Kuehn)
Subject: Re: Domain naming conventions
Organization: TDK Consulting Services
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:26:39 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 97

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

The "get it right" isn't a function of number of characters but how
rememberable it is. Letter-digit-letter combinations are shorter,
but they are *not* easy to remember, and consequently are much more
likely to get wrong than actual, meaningful names. Ask any postie what
kind of things people to do postal codes when they send mail for an
example.

>Well actually I would suggest that [e-mail] is sufficent. And is
>    [e-mail]
>    [e-mail]
>eight characters less to remember or type.

Character length is irrelevent except as a function of typing time.
It's how rememberable the designation is that's important. If you make
it cryptic, then you're not doing anyone except your modem's bandwidth
a favor, and causing a lot more grief from frustrated users who have
to correct their mistakes when they can't recall (for the umpteenth time)
what the postal code of that person/organization is.


>>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.

Install x.400 and ask it while you're at it. The point here is that
whatever convention we establish, it has to be something easily useable
by the general populace, and postal-codes or other cryptic designations
that are not readily associatable with the person or entity, which require
them to do all sorts of work to remember that identifier do *not* accomplish
that ends.

Shortness is desireable, but not at the expense of usability.

>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.

The first three letters of the postal code are not constant for a given
municipality, or city for that matter.

>For example how do you specifiy Portage la Prairie?

Good question. But once an abbreviation has been established, as long
as it's followed by all other sites in that area that register under
that domain, then things'll be fine.

>I am also of the opinion that it will be impossible to satisfy everyone
>with *one* way of doing things.

Agreed there.

>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.

Technical? I doubt it. Administrative? I wouldn't want to have to
admin all sorts of different domain registrations such a scheme like
that would generate.

>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.

Actually, this has no place in a domain naming convention because the
solution to that would be to establish a host to hide message origination
of a person from hostiles, not by a domain name.

It certainly isn't a "General case" as far as the vast majority of
naming situations are, which is what we should be concerned about
first.

>Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software

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