Standardization of host call letters
A proposal for short host call letters in Telnet programs.
Bhushan, A. and R. Metcalfe, "Standardization of host call letters", RFC 233, DOI 10.17487/RFC0233, September 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc233>.
@misc{rfc233,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 233,
howpublished = {RFC 233},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0233},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc233},
author = {A. Bhushan and R. Metcalfe},
title = {{Standardization of host call letters}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1971,
month = sep,
} RFC text
Network Working Group 28 Sept 71 Abhay Bhushan
RFC #233, NIC #7650 Bob Metcalfe
Standardization of Host Call Letters
------------------------------------
We agree with Peggy Karp (See RFC #226) that there would be some
benefit in standardizing the symbolic host names used in TELNET
programs. It should be recognized that there is a trade-off
between brevity and mnemonicism. It is our feeling that a good
set of host call letters can be developed using only four
characters (see Jim White's in RFC #206.) Each host should
suggest its own call letters. Upper and lower case letters
should be used interchangeably. The following is our currently
recommended list:
Host Number Name-4 Name-8
----------- ------ ------
1 sex sex-ucla
65 ccn ccn-ucla
2 nic nic-sri
66 srai sri-ai
3 ucsb ucsb
4 utah utah
5 bbn5 bbn-516
69 bbna bbn-10x
133 bbnb bbn-x10x
6 mult multics
70 dmcg mit-dmcg
134 its mit-ai
7 ra65 rand-65
71 ra10 rand-10
8 sdc sdc
9 harv harvard
73 har1 harvpdp1
137 ha11 harpdp11
10 ll67 linc-67
74 tx2 linc-tx2
11 stan stanford
12 ill illinois
13 case case
14 cmu cmu
15 paol paoli
16 ames ames-67
144 amtp ames-tip
145 mttp mitretip
18 radc radc
146 rdtp radc-tip
19 nbs nbspdp11
147 nbtp nbs-tip
148 etac etac
21 tink tink-418
22 mccl mccl-418
23 usc usc-44
151 ustp usc-tip
152 gwc gwc-tip
25 ncar ncar7600
153 nctp ncar-tip
158 bbtp bbn-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 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Why Standardize Host Names
The authors agree that standard symbolic host names would benefit Telnet users. They note a trade-off between brevity and names that help users remember a host, and argue that a useful set can fit within four characters.
They recommend that each host suggest its own call letters and that uppercase and lowercase be treated interchangeably.
Standard names could make hosts easier to identify in Telnet. The authors want short names but also recognize that a memorable name can be longer.
§2Recommended Host List
The RFC lists host numbers alongside a four-character name and an eight-character name. Examples include sex and sex-ucla, nic and nic-sri, and ucsb in both columns.
The list represents the authors' current recommendations; the RFC does not define a mechanism for automatically distributing or updating the names.
The table pairs host numbers with shorter and longer names. Each site was expected to suggest its own call letters.
§3Case Handling
The proposed names use letters in a way that permits upper- and lowercase forms interchangeably. This is the only explicit operational rule in the RFC beyond the recommended name lengths and list.
A user could enter a proposed host name in uppercase or lowercase. The RFC recommends that both forms identify the same name.