- From: Michael Shapiro <mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:36:53 -0500 (CDT)
- To: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore)
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Keith Moore wrote: | |To restate my points concisely: | |+ if we're going to use DNS domains for URNs, we need a new chunk | of domain name space to be used by those URNs that need to be | persistent for the long term. | |+ however, it's still useful to be able to have URNs that use | domains from the existing DNS space. | |Keith | I was trying to ask these 2 questions: 1. To get long term persistence, do we have to have a new name space? 2. Will a new top level DNS domain be a sufficient new name space, or do we have to do something which is not DNS based? Your answer to (1) is that we do. I think so, too. I thought Karen Sollins was saying this as well. I'd like Karen and others besides you and I give an answer. Answers to (2) are wanting. DNS is very good for resolution. (I have some timings on "path" lookups that will pleasantly suprise you.) Is DNS good enough wrt name assignment? It might be that the way names get created in DNS might not be good enough to help insure persistence. I have heard statements that it is hard to get a new top level DNS domain. I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, should that be a guiding principle - ease of creating and extending the name space? Does ease (or difficulty) of creating and extending the name space affect persistence? If it is easy to create a naming authority, will this work against persistence? -- Michael Shapiro mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu NCSA (217) 244-6642 605 E Springfield Ave. RM 152CAB fax: (217) 333-5973 Champaign, IL 61820
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 08:37:17 UTC