Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdaisy!pcelis
From: pcelis@watdaisy.UUCP (Pedro Celis)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: RFC920 domains
Message-ID: <7335@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 10:13:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7335
Posted: Thu Jun 27 10:13:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 00:50:50 EDT
References: <918@sdcsvax.UUCP> <532@deepthot.UUCP> <8066@ucbvax.ARPA> <2329@icarus.fluke.UUCP> <943@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: pcelis%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet (Pedro Celis)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27
Summary: 

In Article 484 of net.mail.headers:
> 
> > > I think that is important that anyone who is tempted to jump into the
> > > domain discussion consider that what we really want is a way to name
> > > hosts *independent* of their physical location or physical network
> > > address, ...
> 
> In <2329@icarus.fluke.UUCP>  joe@fluke attempts to reply:
> > When is everyone going to realize that the point of domains is to separate
> > the physical addressing from the naming?
> 
> >Domain names have absolutely nothing to do with routing.  
> 
> Just because I don't agree with you, don't think that means I don't
> understand domain naming, domain servers, and so on. ...
> 			    ...  Conversely, I route some messages
> to New Jersey and Illinois to get to Northern California, because
> the path is shorter--smart domain addressing might send it from
> San Diego to Silicon Valley in one hop.

Once again. What does a domain scheme to NAME a host has to do with
the ROUTE used to send messages to that host?
-- 
------
Arpa:  pcelis%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
CSNet: pcelis%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
UUCP:  ...!{allegra,decvax}!watmath!watdaisy!pcelis