John Curran supposedly said:
At 17:25 1/7/97, John W. Stewart III wrote:
conventions are fine
and it's helpful to users and operators alike for names to contain a fair amount of information
but "standardizing" with fixed-width fields, pop codes, next-hop router, etc. doesn't seem that productive when providers are gonna do what they want anyway.
No... we're going to mandate OID-style router names for the world's Internet providers:
<isoc-tree>.<internet-infrastructure branch>. <iso country code>.<city ordinal>.<provider #>. <facility #>.<rack #>.<shelf #>.<router ordinal>
Great fun to watch (it could be happening this way in the alternate universe next door.)
;-) /John
Which is exactly why I asked the question if people are serious about this. I have great fun specifying things (hey thats why I like the IETF :-) and would happily spend a few hours coming up with all sorts of great specifications but I want to know if they have any chance of being adopted. ---> Phil