Message-Id: <m0pvmyE-0004JMC@inca.gate.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:14 EDT
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
From: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
Subject: Re: Yet more URI/URC
At 11:14 PM 4/25/94 -0400, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>> But, I see your point and I don't see how one can prevent "bogus" URN
>> servers from springing up, short of cutting 'em off at the knees by
>> preventing their INITIAL lookup. Does this imply Network URN police (sigh
>> :-()?
>
>I don't see that this will be needed. The purpose of the
>naming authority portion of the URN that we proposed was to
>permit control over who gets to perform the conversion on
>that naming authority's behalf. I'd originally thought of
>using the IANA to maintain a registry of naming
>authorities but I now agree that using DNS (which also has
>a mechanism for guaranteeing authority and it has the
>advantage of being distributed) makes more sense. Once we
>have that in place, than distinguishing between:
>
> urn:myname.urn.int:war-and-peace
> urn:yourname.urn.int:war-and-peace
>
>is easy. The first gets resolved by "myname.urn.int" and
>the second by "yourname.urn.int" (and apologies if I have
>the syntax on this wacko. I'm not proposing an
>alternative, I just don't have the details handy).
>
Peter, you may know more about this than I do, but I don't take great
comfort DNS authority granting mechnisms preventing folks from creating
bogus URNs. I think access to the URN namespace will be readily available.
Just like access to DNS is. Again I ask, who is going to be watching?
-- Dirk Herr-Hoyman | CyberBeach Publishing | Practice * Internet publishing services | random acts of kindness Lake Worth, Florida, USA | and hoymand@gate.net | senseless beauty +1.407.540.8309 |