RFC239

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