[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thursday 20 March 2003 11:22, John Cowan wrote:
> Alaric B. Snell scripsit:
> > ...making a URN namespace that looks like:
> >
> > urn:domain:alaric-snell.com:wibble
> >
> > ...would make sense IMHO; the rules being that the owner of a domain in
> > DNS can generate URNs as she sees fit that follow the rule
>
> The trouble is that domain names can and do change hands,
So can any kind of registry entry.
> and there is
> no protection against different owners issuing colliding URNs.
No system has any such protection unless you mandate digital signature based
protections; if a name is published, then anyone else can decide they're
going to use the same name for something else.
> So a
> date has to be involved, and IMHO should be involved in *every* namespace
> name, whether URL or URN, where the DNS is being relied on at all.
That's moving towards a 'big ugly number' scheme - where lots of numeric data
are pushed together to ensure uniqueness. UUIDs are the best example of these
in commmon use; they would make good URNs in many ways, but are a bastard to
remember :-)
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
