[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>
cc: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, "Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>, George Belotsky <george@register.com>, Hollenbeck Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:15:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <200103090007.f29077r03071@zed.isi.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Unique handle generation



> 	How are Registry Identifiers different from the handles
> 	we have been tossing about?  I expect that handle concatination
> 	between objects may be useful to narrow scope in -limited-
> 	circumstances, the general rule should be to only expose the
> 	handle.  None of <MY> handles is going to have, as part of
> 	<MY> handle, a conncationation that describes some association.
> 	Their handles might... :)

Bill,

the utility come from the ability to locate the object through a yet to be
detemined protocol.

-rick



Home | Date list | Subject list