To:
wessorh@ar.com (Rick H Wesson)
Cc:
bmanning@isi.edu (Bill Manning), paf@cisco.com (Patrik Fältström), briansp@walid.com (Brian W. Spolarich), george@register.com (George Belotsky), shollenbeck@verisign.com (Hollenbeck Scott), ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>
Date:
Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:45:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.30.0103081614320.10073-100000@loki.ar.com> from "Rick H Wesson" at Mar 08, 2001 04:15:09 PM
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 I didn't say they were not useful. I am saying that my handle is useful in and of itself w/o being tied to another handle that describes a registry. (Noting that at the time I receive a delegation, I become my own registry... :) -- --bill