- From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 18:44:28 -0700
- To: dupuy@smarts.com (Alexander Dupuy)
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
>This is a good point in favor of a separate URN top-level domain, which I have >previously felt to be unnecessary. Actually, after seeing this argument, I >would now favor a separate URN top-level domain to be used for locating all >URN resolvers, in order to keep the regular DNS names (which do tend to change >over time) out of URNs. Just for clarity, are you proposing a domain name system ending with ".urn", such as "proper.urn"? If so, who would assign the second-level names? The InterNIC? And, if so, what about people outside the US who want names? Another similar option is to allow anyone to be a URN service. I earlier mentioned the fictional URNsRUs, whose US-based domain name might be urnsrus.com. The naming authority in a URN that was through this company might look like: proper.urnsrus.com 3.5.9.2.100.2.urnsrus.com (Look, Michael: OIDs!) and so on. There could be many competitors, essentially anyone who wanted to put up enough secondary name servers to handle the crush of lookup requests and the updates to their name tables. As you can tell, I'm still against a central naming hierarchy, even if it is ".urn". I don't trust the namer delegators to give them away freely and fairly, I don't trust them to resolve them freely and fairly, and so on. The current DNS still sounds pretty reliable to me. --Paul Hoffman --Proper Publishing
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 1995 21:45:48 UTC