1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc273.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc273.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63dec58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc273.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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:
+
+      <Institution Mnemonic>    "-"   <Host or NIC Station Mnemonic>
+
+      and an optional nickname of the form:
+
+                  <Nickname>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 1]
+
+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.
+
+      <Institution Mnemonic> 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
+         <Institution Mnemonic> 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.
+
+      <Host or Nic Station Mnemonic> will not have any restriction
+      on length, but should if possible be short.  In picking <Host
+      or NIC Station Mnemonic>, an order of priority for choosing
+      this mnemonic might be
+
+         (1)  Suborganization within the <Institution Mnemonic>.
+
+         (2)  Project mnemonic.
+
+         (3)  Machine designation.
+
+         (4) The suggestion in RFC 247, NIC 7688 to include the
+         designation TIP or TEST should probably be followed as
+         conveying useful information.
+
+         Examples might be:
+
+            ARC, NMC, NCCTIP, TENEXA, TENEXB, MULTICS, ILLIAC, SAIL,
+            DMCG, IMP, TX2, etc.
+
+      The <nickname> should be unique within the network community,
+      short, and preferably should be the same as <Host or NIC
+      Station Mnemonic> to make life easy for people having to learn
+      them.
+
+   I would strongly recommend that Telnets recognize both the Formal
+   Name and the Nickname.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 2]
+
+RWW 20 OCT 71 7837                                More on Standard Names
+
+
+   Now the sticky question:  who chooses the names?  The only
+   satisfactory answer is to allow the hosts, through their liaison,
+   to choose their own names, possibly subject to some discussion if
+   duplicate or extra long names are picked.  Hosts or stations at a
+   given institution should use the same <Institution Mnemonic>.
+
+   Let's settle this issue as soon as possible, say by November 5;
+   each liaison please send me your names by then.
+
+   If there are any implementation hardship cases, other than TIPs,
+   caused by the above scheme, please let me know as soon as
+   possible.
+
+
+
+         [ 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   ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                                                [Page 3]
+