Re: Belated comments on OCLC's proposal

> Our name space supports both a hierarchical name space (DNS with FQDN or IP)
> and a "flat" registered name space.  The primary focuses of the I-D are
> services, unregistered name authorities and RPs not the 'flatness' of 
> the name authority space.

I have yet to see a single argument that, when carefully examined,
weighs in favor of having a flat name space.  If DNS query protocols
are used to locate services for any part of the name space, there is
no reason not to use DNS query protocols for the entire URN name

> Note that the NAs in our proposal are of two types: registered NAs and 
> unregistered NAs.  The registered NAs are dependent on a single, 
> replicated, cachable Naming Authority Registry.  This is the top level 
> of the tree.  We are not depending on a single replicated Name Resolver.
> The unregistered NAs are dependent on DNS.

Why complicate things in this way, when the simpler solution is fully


Received on Wednesday, 21 June 1995 14:58:24 UTC