RE: Unique handle generation

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Patrik,

Are you suggesting that a handle as you described be assigned to every
registry object, and that this handle should be used as the one and only
searchable identifier for the object?  Or are you suggesting a combination
of searchable identifiers, such as domain name, host name, contact e-mail
address, and such a handle (with the local part of the handle being the
domain name, host name, e-mail address, etc)?

Sorry to be dense, I'm trying to capture this precisely so it can be
accurately described for our Minneapolis "issues" discussion.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'George Belotsky'
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: RE: Unique handle generation


At 15.38 -0500 01-03-07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>George,
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, but what's not unique about an e-mail address?

A handle is a globally unique identifier of a record in a database. 
The handle can normally be used for two things:

  - Uniqueness
  - Locality

In some cases when one design a handle, one have to choose one of 
these functions before the other, i.e. prioritize.

Each record need a handle.

A person change email address, but the handle of the record which 
contain the email address should stay the same -- and have as long 
life as possible.

The routing registries today use handles which are of the form

  <LOCAL HANDLE>-<SERVER HANDLE>

Example: PAFA1-RIPE

The local handle have to be unique within the server, and the server 
handles unique by itself. The combination of local handle and server 
handle will because of this be globally unique.

A record can if these kind of handles are used refer to objects in a 
different registry -- which I claim is a good thing.

If we have a registry of all server handles, we can even locate the 
record given the server handle -- which I claim is a good thing.

A record can though NOT with this design move from one registry to 
another, and I claim that is not needed.

With registry I mean for example the three RIR we have today, or one 
TLD registry (including registrars).

This means that all registrars for the same TLD have to use the same 
server handle, and unique local handles between themselves for this 
scheme to work.

If not, if one transfer a domain (for example) from one registrar to 
another, the handle will change. This is a bad thing.

So, my proposal is simply that the local handle is allocated / 
generated by the registry for each object, the server handle is 
registered somewhere (I have a draft which is on it's way out...but I 
missed the deadline) and unique for the registry -- and the handle 
for any object is a combination of the two.

       paf



>
><Scott/>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Belotsky [mailto:george@register.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:25 PM
>To: Christopher Ambler
>Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: Re: Unique handle generation
>
>
>Maybe we can attach some other information along with the email
>address to ensure uniqueness.  A digest of the whole handle can then
>be generated.  At this point, you basically have a UUID.  People can
>use the plain text version of their handle (easy to remember), while
>automated information exchanges can work with the digests directly.
>
>.. and I hope this is not beef liver, or you may not even remember
>     your email in a few years :) ...
>
>George.
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>  I have been, and remain convinced that email address, with the
>>  ability to change it as necessary, is the way to go.
>>
>>  Then again, I'm also fond of liver and onions.
>>
>>  Christopher
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
>>  To: "'George Belotsky'" <george@register.com>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
>>  Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:36 AM
>>  Subject: RE: Unique handle generation
>>
>>
>>  > George,
>>  >
>>  > In terms of placing interoperability in the hands of the user, I
prefer
>the
>>  > idea of either letting them choose their own identifier (it it happens
>to be
>>  > unused by anyone else), or using an e-mail address.
InterNIC-generated
>>  > handles (which sounds similar to what you've suggested below) haven't
>proven
>>  > to be very memorable or useful in other contexts.
>>  >
>>  > <Scott/>
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: George Belotsky [mailto:george@register.com]
>>  > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:54 AM
>>  > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>>  > Subject: Unique handle generation
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Since unique handle creation is still an open issue, could we not
>>  > borrow/adapt a UUID generating algorithm for making such handles?
>  > >
>>  > This eliminates the need to keep a centralized database of these
>>  > things.  Anyone can have as many handles as they want, and use them as
>>  > they see fit.  This places interoperability in the hands of the user;
>>  > if someone wants their information shared between systems, they will
>>  > continue to use the same handle.
>>  >
>>  > George.