RFC 226 UNKNOWN TELNET · NAMING · ARPANET

Standardization of host mnemonics

A 1971 proposal to give every Telnet program the same short names for network hosts.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
September 1971
AUTHORS
P.M. Karp
STREAM
Legacy
OBSOLETED BY
RFC 247 — Proffered set of standard host names
DESIGNATOR LENGTH
Six characters
OBJECTION DEADLINE
3 October
POLICY DATE TO BE SET
8 October
DOI
10.17487/RFC0226

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
NETWORK WORKING GROUP                                   PEGGY KARP
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS #226                               MITRE
NIC #7625                                               20 SEPT 71
CATEGORIES: D.3
UPDATES: NONE
OBSOLETES: NONE

                   STANDARDIZATION OF HOST MNEUMONICS

IN EACH TELNET IMPLEMENTATION, A LIST OF HOST NMEUMONICS IS PROVIDED
FOR THE USER TO INDICATE THE SERVING HOST DESIRED.  CURRENTLY, EACH
SITE EMPLOYS THEIR OWN SPECIAL LIST.  RATHER THAN REQUIRE THE USER TO
BE COGNIZANT OF THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF EACH LIST, ESPECIALLY WHEN
CHAINED THROUGH SEVERAL HOSTS VIA TELNET, IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT
STANDARD HOST DESIGNATORS BE ADOPTED.

THE FOLLOWING LIST OF SIX CHARACTER DESIGNATORS IS PROPOSED AS THE
STANDARD LIST.  REGISTER ANY OBJECTIONS BY 3 OCTOBER TO P. KARP (703)
893-3500 X2391, X2318. AN OFFICIAL POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION DATE WILL
BE SET ON 8 OCTOBER.

THE LIST:
            HOST #             DESIGNATOR
              1                  UCLA
             65                  UCLA36
              2                  SRIARC
             66                  SRIAI
              3                  UCSB
              4                  UTAH
              6                  MULTCS
             70                  MITDM
              7                  RAND
              8                  SDC
              9                  HARV
             10                  LNCTX2
             74                  LNC360
             11                  STAN
             12                  ILL
             69                  BBN
            133                  BBNB
            144                  AMES
            145                  MITRE
            158                  TIP

       [ 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   ]

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMEach Telnet implementation had its own list of host mnemonics, so users had to learn every site's idiosyncrasies, especially when chained through several hosts.
MECHANISMThe note proposes one standard list of six-character host designators, paired with host numbers, and asks for objections by 3 October.
STATUS TODAYThis proposal was obsoleted by RFC 247, which carries the idea forward.

§1The Problem With Host Mnemonics

In each Telnet implementation, a list of host mnemonics lets the user say which serving host they want. At the time, each site used its own special list.

That forced users to be aware of the idiosyncrasies of every list, especially when chained through several hosts via Telnet. It was therefore recommended that standard host designators be adopted.

Every school used a different nickname for the same computer. That is confusing, so the note asks everyone to use the same nicknames.

§2The Proposed List

The RFC proposes a list of six character designators. Each entry pairs a host number with a designator: for example host 1 is UCLA, host 2 is SRIARC, host 3 is UCSB, host 4 is UTAH and host 145 is MITRE.

Several sites with more than one host get a name for each, such as host 65 as UCLA36 and host 133 as BBNB. Host 158 is listed as TIP.

It is like a class list that gives every computer one short name next to its number, so everybody calls it the same thing.

§3Schedule and Outcome

Objections were to be registered by 3 October with P. Karp at MITRE. An official policy and implementation date would be set on 8 October.

The unit metadata records that RFC 247 later obsoleted this note.

People had a couple of weeks to say if they disliked the plan. After that, the rule would be made official.