Browse Prior Art Database

More on standard host names (RFC0273)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003325D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Oct-18
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 4K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

R.W. Watson: AUTHOR

Abstract

The Network Information Center is a logical place to handle this problem of Standard Host Names and so the ball now rests here. This is clearly a delicate subject with people having strong feelings and attachments to names. No past proposal, including RFC 247, NIC 7668, has yet achieved any acceptance. This identification seems a natural thing and should be taken into account in setting up a naming scheme. Therefore, the following proposal is offered which I hope may be satisfactory to everyone.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 63% of the total text.

Network Working Group Richard W. Watson

Request for Comments #273 SRI-ARC

NIC 7837 18 October 1971

Categories:

Related: 7625, 7626, 7661, 7688, 7650, 7646

Obsoletes: 7662

MORE ON STANDARD HOST NAMES

The Network Information Center is a logical place to handle this

problem of Standard Host Names and so the ball now rests here.

This is clearly a delicate subject with people having strong

feelings and attachments to names. No past proposal, including

RFC 247, NIC 7668, has yet achieved any acceptance. This

identification seems a natural thing and should be taken into

account in setting up a naming scheme. Therefore, the following

proposal is offered which I hope may be satisfactory to everyone.

Any naming scheme must:

(1) Recognize the expanding character of the Network, with

the potential eventually of several hundred sites.

(2) Recognize the need for abbreviations to simplify typing.

(3) Recognize the use of names on hardcopy and online

documentation

(4) Recognize people's strong identification with historical

names associated with their project.

To meet these needs, we propose adoption of a hybrid scheme

related to those in the other past proposals.

Each host will have a formal name of the form:

"-"

and an optional nickname of the form:

RWW 20 OCT 71 7837 More on Standard Names

We have heard no arguments to support severe restrictions on name

length and, therefore, human considerations should probably

prevail, but would suggest the following guidelines.

will be at most 4 characters, formed as

per RFC 247, NIC (7688,).

Examples of Institutions being: AMES, CASE, BBN, UCLA,

SRI, MIT, HARV, MITR, etc.

We must recognize that in the future there may be multiple

IMPS and TIPS and combinations at a given institution, so

that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between

and IMPS or TIPS. Also affiliated

with the Network, there will be groups and individuals

without an IMP or a TIP, or with just a terminal to a TIP,

whose organizations need unique names.

will not have any restriction

on length, but should if possible be short. In picking

or NIC Station Mnemonic>, an order of priority for choosing

this mnemonic might be

...