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