To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:46:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D75076C@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Unique handle generation
ok, I stand corrected. Handles would be a good thing for all objects. -rick On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 6:48 PM > > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > > Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > > Subject: RE: Unique handle generation > > > > Scott, > > > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > [snip] > > > > > > 1. Every object MUST have an associated handle. > > > > Domain Name objects DO NOT need handles, as the FQDN uniquely > > identifies > > the object. > > True, but the FQDN doesn't identify the registry/repository without a layer > of indirection (you have to know or figure out that .com is in the VeriSign > registry, for example). Some of the comments in this thread have suggested > that this was one of the reasons that a handle should be required for all > objects. > > <Scott/> >