RE: Unique handle generation

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@bailey.dscga.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:53 AM
>To: George Belotsky
>Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: Re: Unique handle generation
>
>
>On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:30:14AM -0500, George Belotsky wrote:
>> The reason for having global identifiers for all objects is so
>> that they can move between various entities without changing.
>
>But we really haven't specified if that's a goal yet have we?
>The sticking point for me is: has this actually happened and 
>are the times it happens more easily handled by some additional
>metadata pointing to equivalent identifiers in other 
>registry/registrar.
>Let's take Bill's example of WM110, WM110-ARIN, WM110-RIPE, etc [1]
>Would it be easier to just use the current de facto usage and add
>something to the schema of objects that shows equivalence in other
>object repositories? Even in Bill's example you have WM35-RADB so
>the only way to know that's the same Bill Manning is for something
>in the database to tell you so.

Agreed, I don't think that object movement between repositories is a common
enough issue to be categorized as the "reason for having global
identifiers".  IMO, the most significant use of these identifiers will be in
whois.  They will likely be required as part of a response (such as to
identify domain contacts), and then be queried or automatically resolved to
appropriate repositories (such as to obtain a registrant's address/phone
number/etc).

<Scott/>