To:
Christopher Ambler <cambler-ietf@iodesign.com>
cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:14:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<008f01c0a9bd$a43fc690$b26827cb@underslunky>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Unique handle generation
Chris, I don't think we can make that decision as it is up to the registry to implement the plicy that a 1 to 1 relation ship exists between IPv4 addresses and name servers. -rick On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Christopher Ambler wrote: > Same with name servers, then, if you mandate that there is one object > per IP address? > > Christopher > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com> > To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> > Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:48 PM > Subject: RE: Unique handle generation > > > > > > Scott, > > > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > > > > > OK, I see your point. In an earlier message you suggested some requirements > > > for handles; let me try to capture those thoughts (and some mentioned by > > > others) more precisely: > > > > > > 1. Every object MUST have an associated handle. > > > > Domain Name objects DO NOT need handles, as the FQDN uniquely identifies > > the object. > > > > > > -rick > > > > > > >