Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:35:27 PDT
From: Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com
Subject: Re: "Why isn't IETF using FPIs?"
To: uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <"20-Oct-94 15:35:07".*.Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@Xerox.com>
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 94 06:14:07 PDT
Sender: mitra%pandora.sf.ca.us@mitramac.path.NET
From: mitra@path.NET
Subject: Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?"
To: Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@Xerox.com
cc: Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@Xerox.com, masinter@parc.xerox.COM
Message-ID: <aacb3d5802021004e31f@[198.133.26.185]>
<----RFC822 headers-----
Received: from pandora.sf.ca.us ([192.190.111.22]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <14590(1)>; Thu, 20 Oct 1994 06:14:07 PDT
Received: from mitramac.path.net by pandora.sf.ca.us id aa09424;
20 Oct 94 6:19 PDT
X-Sender: mitra@red.path.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
-----RFC822 headers---->
At 11:34 PM 10/19/94, Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com wrote:
>Mitra,
>
>If there is a legacy issue, perhaps another approach would work better.
>
>First off, the Internet (IETF?) could obtain either or both of an object
>identifier (root) or a registered owner-name and assign object identifiers
>and/or public identifiers on the basis of that.
By legacy, I presume you mean ISO names?
>Secondly, I don't know what the domain name syntax is, but if it is
>compatible with the ISO 9070 object-name component syntax you could
>grandfather existing domain names into the 9070 public identifier space by
>establishing a registered Internet owner-name (say <Internet-name>) and
>mapping existing domain names to "<Internet-name>//domain-name" ("//"
>being the separateor between the owner-name and the object-name. The
>Internet, as owner of <Internet-name>, could also append one or more
>owner-name components to <Internet-name) to create additional owner-names.
I understand ISO uses numbers, DNS uses names.
>By the way, "hundreds of thousands . . . Domain names". Really ?!
Easily - something like 1 million networks each with one or more domains (I
was being conservative in my guess).
>Re: Your suggestion that the discussion be moved to uri@bunyip.com - I
>have no problem with that assuming that you think that there is a
>discussion which should be carried on in a larger forum.
Sure, if this discussion is worth holding its worth getting more than my
bised opinions :-)
- Mitra
=======================================================================
Mitra mitra@path.net
Internet Consulting (415)488-0944
<http://www.path.net/mitra> fax (415)488-0988
----- End Forwarded Messages -----