Re: Unique handle generation

[Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>]

 Tough call. Perhaps a new type of registry?




% 
% And who would be responsible for maintaining the globally uniqueness of your
% personal handle?  It would be reasonable for IANA to maintain registry
% handles, but it cannot be a generic object registry.
% 
% wil
% 
% ----- Original Message -----
% From: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@isi.edu>
% To: <michaelm@netsol.com>
% Cc: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@isi.edu>; "Hollenbeck Scott"
% <shollenbeck@verisign.com>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
% Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:04 AM
% Subject: Re: Unique handle generation
% 
% 
% > %>% I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make in the
% context of
% > %>% admin repository changes over time.
% > %>%
% > %>% What happens to your example handle if the admin function is one day
% moved
% > %>% from ARIN to some other administrative entity (call it !ARIN for the
% sake of
% > %>% argument), but the person and prefix remain constant?  Does the handle
% > %>% remain WM110-ARIN, or must it change to WM110-!ARIN?
% > %>
% > %> The legecy composite  WM110-ARIN remains
% > %> If -I- chose to do business w/ !ARIN, then !ARIN may
% > %> create the composite WM110-!ARIN.  If !ARIN wishes
% > %> to create the composite anyway, they -MUST- use my
% > %> handle, WM110, not create something else.. like BM14
% > %> or WM73.
% > %
% > % So your personal handle is part of a globally unique space that all
% > % registries have to coordinate to ensure uniqueness, right?
% > %
% > % -MM
% >
% > Unfortunately, yes.
% > Just like the registry handles have be be globally unique.
% > (It would be confusing to have two registries with the same
% > handle... :)
% > One must have globally unique space within each object type.
% >
% >
% > --
% > --bill
% 


-- 
--bill