RE: Unique handle generation

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Belotsky [mailto:george@register.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:44 PM
>To: Hollenbeck, Scott
>Cc: 'Patrik Fältström'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: Re: Unique handle generation
>

[snip]

>This once again gets back to what the handle is for.  To illustrate, I
>have listed three basic variants below.
>
>         (1) Handles are used to search for objects.
>         (2) Handles are used to quickly look up objects, regardless of
>             their location.
>         (3) Handles are used only to request operations on 
>objects whose
>             location is already known.

[snip]

This feels like "deja vu all over again" (my apologies to Yogi Berra):

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-03/msg00035.html

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-03/msg00038.html

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-03/msg00039.html

I think we've already determined (or at least I've suggested) that variant
(2) is required functionality for systems like whois.  Within a registry, I
don't believe variant (3) provides any functionality that we don't have with
more basic identifiers -- I can refer to a domain name or host name by FQN
and a contact name by whatever local part makes sense because these values
are already unique within the repository.  There are deployed systems (like
whois again) that provide variant (1) functionality, though I don't think
this functionality is necessary in a provisioning protocol.

<Scott/>