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