To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: email@example.com's message of Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:58:05 -0700 <95Jun21.firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: new port for DNS From: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> Message-Id: <95Jun22.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 01:11:10 PDT >The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that if URNs are to be as >persistent as possible, that they should be numeric (or alphanumeric codes >like the LoC numbers or British/Canadian postal code system). If you use >human-readable names like "proper" or "ibm" people will get emotional and/or >possessive about them, making it much harder to prevent the URNs containing >them from changing over time. At the last URI meeting, it was suggested that adding a date stamp to a DNS name might circumvent the impermanence of DNS names. The granularity of the date stamp need not be small, e.g., just a year might do, and certainly year/month. dns-urn:ibm.com/1995/<ibm-document-id> This would solve a variety of difficulties with potential reuse of identifiers.