To:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:20:58 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.30.0103101546290.10073-100000@loki.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Unique handle generation
At 15.48 -0800 01-03-10, Rick H Wesson wrote: >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. We need handles on _every_ object, and maybe the handle on domain name objects (which is a very small part of all objects we talk about) have the same syntax as the FQDN. But I see talking about some object classes not having handles is not a good thing. Think about AS-numbers, IP-address blocks (for IPv4 and IPv6), E.164 numbers (for ENUM-like services) etc. And _then_ all different kind of admin, acl objects that are needed for the actual databases. paf