Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:05:47 PDT
From: strasen.es_ae@xerox.com
Subject: Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?"
In-Reply-To: <aacb3d5802021004e31f@[198.133.26.185]>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <"20-Oct-94 15:05:39".*.Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@Xerox.com>
Mitra,
(My mail manager does not provide >prefixed lines, so I will just make do).
Re:
>>If there is a legacy issue, perhaps another approach would work better.
>>
>By legacy, I presume you mean ISO names?
No, I mean IETF! I understood your previous message to say that IETF is trying to accommodate a large existing body of domain names which have already been assigned.
Re:
>>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.
ISO 8824 (ASN.1) object identifiers use numbers. ISO 9070 public identifiers use names.
Re:
>>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 :-)
If so, we should start by forwarding Larry's inquiry and my long reply. Larry??
//Steve