[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alaric B. Snell scripsit:
> > The trouble is that domain names can and do change hands,
>
> So can any kind of registry entry.
Yes, but some registries have explicit policies against it
(once-and-for-all allocation). For example, the publisher codes in
ISBNs *have* been reissued, as have U.S. social security numbers, but
not on purpose.
DNS used to be once-and-for-all, but was deliberately migrated to a
name-rental scheme.
> > and there is
> > no protection against different owners issuing colliding URNs.
>
> No system has any such protection [...].
I should have said "different owners *legitimately* issuing colliding URNs".
> > 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 [...] .
But not very far. Dates (or in fact year numbers) are sufficient to
disambiguate name-rental situations like DNS.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
--_The Hobbit_
|
