Host mnemonics proposed in RFC 226 (NIC 7625)
UCLA-CCN's critique of the host mnemonic proposal in RFC 226.
Braden, R.T., "Host mnemonics proposed in RFC 226 (NIC 7625)", RFC 239, DOI 10.17487/RFC0239, September 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc239>.
@misc{rfc239,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 239,
howpublished = {RFC 239},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0239},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc239},
author = {R.T. Braden},
title = {{Host mnemonics proposed in RFC 226 (NIC 7625)}},
pagetotal = 1,
year = 1971,
month = sep,
} RFC text
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
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Agreement and Main Concerns
UCLA-CCN agrees that a standard set of host mnemonics should be selected. It says the proposed set appears to reflect historical choices by TENEX Telnet programmers rather than a deliberate naming process.
The authors suggest that NIC site codes might be a better source because they had been selected with more care and were expected to become familiar to users.
UCLA-CCN supports standard host names but questions how the proposed names were chosen. It suggests using NIC site codes as a more considered starting point.
§2Completeness and Name Length
The comments ask whether host mnemonics should be limited to six characters. They also say that the proposed list showed 20 hosts while a recent BBN list showed 40, and argue that a proposed standard should cover all known hosts at the time.
The authors question the proposed six-character limit and point out that the list omits many hosts shown in a more recent roster.
§3Specific Name Changes
UCLA-CCN proposes UCLAS7 or UCLANM for host 1 and UCLA91 for host 65, rather than the names in the proposal. It also suggests SRINIC for host 2 because the site was commonly called the NIC rather than SRIARC.
The authors conclude that standards deserve careful consideration rather than preserving what they call historical choices.
The RFC gives replacement names for UCLA's hosts and SRI's NIC host. These examples support the request to choose names deliberately.