Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Tommy_Ericson__QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA From: Tommy_Ericson__QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: Mail Domain Names: Host table vs. Nameservers Message-ID: <2805@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 15:14:12 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2805 Posted: Mon Nov 4 15:14:12 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:18:44 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 41 Chris, watching the discussion from the side I think that your major problem is that you (using the RFC protocols) are trying to solve two problems: 1 - aid in routing matters 2 - impose political restrictions In (1) you will certainly get a situation that is easier to manage when we see more names of the form Don.Provan@A.CS.CMU.EDU, the more levels in the naming hierarchy the higher degree of freedom to implement msg transportation rules for real INTERnetworking. But there is a drawback that is soon (if not already) going to show up: your host tables will grow immensely if you everywhere are required to retain all the information everywhere. Given that you could consider CMU (as an example) infrastructure as an internal matter there would not be a need for you at Purdue to know more than the ADDRESS of CMU.EDU, further distribution is a matter of CMU (as in the case John-Doe%A.CS@CMU.ADU). Comparison with the %-convention reveals that the @-sign should neither have to be that holy, could be interchanged with a dot and there we would have a simpler name structure. Problem (2) is (if I haven't completely misunderstood everything) being imposed (or intended to be) by the fact that all legal hosts should be in some specific host table, thereby disallowing non-registred ones. This can work as long as the number of hosts is small enough, but again (considering workstations etc) is rapidly growing. I agree completely with you that it should be a responsibility of the gatewaying host that grants or denies certain accesses, distribution being the key-word. Finally, I assume that you all know about the CCITT activities on Directory Systems? Two of the members in that Special Rapporteur group are Jim White and Dave Crocker, a fact that should guarantee that experiences and requirements from the DoD Internet environment are considered. I am rather optimistic about that they can come up with a Recommendation that could be universally useable, just WE ALL make sure to give contributions in appropriate ways in time. Cheers, Tommy