💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc239.gmi captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:18:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group R. Braden
Request for Comments: #239 UCLA-CCN
NIC 7664 23 September 1971
Categories: D.3
Related: #226, 229, 236
HOST MNEMONICS PROPOSED IN RFC #226
(Note from NIC: These are comments sent by R.Braden to P. Karp in NIC
7626, and are now issued as NIC 7664, RFC 239 to include them in the
dialogue along with RFC 226, 229, 236)
CCN is in full agreement that a standard set of host mnemonics
should be selected. However, your proposed set is not fully
satisfactory.
1. The set you suggest was created, I assume, by the systems
programmer(s) who wrote TELNET in TENEX. It is a set of
historical accidents, and shows it.
2. A better source for standard mnemonics might be the NIC site
codes, since these have been chosen with more care and will
become familiar as we begin to use the NIC on-line. Surely
the NIC is a more reasonable source for a defacto standard
than a particular system programmer.
3. Should mnemonics be limited to 6 characters?
4. The most recent list from BBN (NIC #7181, RFC #208,
August 9, 1971) shows 40 hosts. You show only 20. Your
proposed standard should include known hosts at this time.
5. The mnemonic "UCLA36" seems a particularly bad choice; "UCLA91"
would be much better.
6. Also, we at CCN object to the short form "UCLA" for the NMC
Sigma 7; that also is historical. We propose the following:
host 1: UCLAS7 or UCLANM; host 65: UCLA91.
7. "SRIARC" is a poor choice; everybody calls it the NIC. So we
suggest "SRINIC" for host 2.
Please, let's not perpetrate systems programmers' midnight
decisions on all future Network users! Standards are vital, and
deserve a little care.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the ]
[ direction of Alex McKenzie. 12/96 ]
9
[Page 1]