RE: Unique handle generation

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

At 17.30 -0500 01-03-07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Are you suggesting that a handle as you described be assigned to every
>registry object,

Yes. Domain name registry aswell as IP-address registry and other 
registries that might be interested in using this protocol when 
communicating with the registrars of theirs.

I might be far off, but this was my intent.

>and that this handle should be used as the one and only
>searchable identifier for the object?

No.

Searchable is something completely different.

Personally, I differ between search and lookup, and when doing a 
lookup, you know exactly the identifier of the object you want to 
get, and issue a query which have exactly that identifier.

DNS is a lookup.

>Or are you suggesting a combination
>of searchable identifiers, such as domain name, host name, contact e-mail
>address, and such a handle (with the local part of the handle being the
>domain name, host name, e-mail address, etc)?

email address etc can _not_ be part of a handle because the email 
address is not long lived enough.

A Handle MUST have a lifetime which is longer than the object itself.

I have changed email address 4 times since my record in the RIPE 
database was created...

     paf


>Sorry to be dense, I'm trying to capture this precisely so it can be
>accurately described for our Minneapolis "issues" discussion.
>
><Scott/>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:12 PM
>To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'George Belotsky'
>Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: RE: Unique handle generation
>
>
>At 15.38 -0500 01-03-07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>George,
>>
>>Maybe I'm missing something, but what's not unique about an e-mail address?
>
>A handle is a globally unique identifier of a record in a database.
>The handle can normally be used for two things:
>
>   - Uniqueness
>   - Locality
>
>In some cases when one design a handle, one have to choose one of
>these functions before the other, i.e. prioritize.
>
>Each record need a handle.
>
>A person change email address, but the handle of the record which
>contain the email address should stay the same -- and have as long
>life as possible.
>
>The routing registries today use handles which are of the form
>
>   <LOCAL HANDLE>-<SERVER HANDLE>
>
>Example: PAFA1-RIPE
>
>The local handle have to be unique within the server, and the server
>handles unique by itself. The combination of local handle and server
>handle will because of this be globally unique.
>
>A record can if these kind of handles are used refer to objects in a
>different registry -- which I claim is a good thing.
>
>If we have a registry of all server handles, we can even locate the
>record given the server handle -- which I claim is a good thing.
>
>A record can though NOT with this design move from one registry to
>another, and I claim that is not needed.
>
>With registry I mean for example the three RIR we have today, or one
>TLD registry (including registrars).
>
>This means that all registrars for the same TLD have to use the same
>server handle, and unique local handles between themselves for this
>scheme to work.
>
>If not, if one transfer a domain (for example) from one registrar to
>another, the handle will change. This is a bad thing.
>
>So, my proposal is simply that the local handle is allocated /
>generated by the registry for each object, the server handle is
>registered somewhere (I have a draft which is on it's way out...but I
>missed the deadline) and unique for the registry -- and the handle
>for any object is a combination of the two.
>
>        paf
>
>
>
>>
>><Scott/>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: George Belotsky [mailto:george@register.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:25 PM
>>To: Christopher Ambler
>>Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>>Subject: Re: Unique handle generation
>>
>>
>>Maybe we can attach some other information along with the email
>>address to ensure uniqueness.  A digest of the whole handle can then
>  >be generated.  At this point, you basically have a UUID.  People can
>>use the plain text version of their handle (easy to remember), while
>>automated information exchanges can work with the digests directly.
>>
>>.. and I hope this is not beef liver, or you may not even remember
>>      your email in a few years :) ...
>>
>>George.
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 10:48:36AM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>>   I have been, and remain convinced that email address, with the
>>>   ability to change it as necessary, is the way to go.
>>>
>>>   Then again, I'm also fond of liver and onions.
>>>
>>>   Christopher
>>>
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>   From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
>>>   To: "'George Belotsky'" <george@register.com>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
>>>   Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:36 AM
>>>   Subject: RE: Unique handle generation
>>>
>>>
>>>   > George,
>>>   >
>>>   > In terms of placing interoperability in the hands of the user, I
>prefer
>>the
>>>   > idea of either letting them choose their own identifier (it it happens
>>to be
>>>   > unused by anyone else), or using an e-mail address.
>InterNIC-generated
>>>   > handles (which sounds similar to what you've suggested below) haven't
>>proven
>>>   > to be very memorable or useful in other contexts.
>>>   >
>>>   > <Scott/>
>>>   >
>>>   > -----Original Message-----
>>>   > From: George Belotsky [mailto:george@register.com]
>>>   > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:54 AM
>>>   > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>>>   > Subject: Unique handle generation
>>>   >
>>>   >
>>>   > Since unique handle creation is still an open issue, could we not
>>>   > borrow/adapt a UUID generating algorithm for making such handles?
>>   > >
>>>   > This eliminates the need to keep a centralized database of these
>>>   > things.  Anyone can have as many handles as they want, and use them as
>>>   > they see fit.  This places interoperability in the hands of the user;
>>>   > if someone wants their information shared between systems, they will
>>>   > continue to use the same handle.
>>>   >
>>>   > George.



-- 
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>                         Cisco Systems
Consulting Engineer                                  Office of the CSO
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-6859131            (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC