# Re: new port for DNS

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 22 Jun 1995 01:11:10 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Masataka Ohta: "Re: new port for DNS"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme"
- Next in thread: Michael Shapiro: "date in URN"
- Reply: Michael Shapiro: "date in URN"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    In-Reply-To: ietf-lists@proper.com's message of Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:58:05 -0700 <95Jun21.230046pdt.2780@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: new port for DNS

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Jun22.011116pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 01:11:10 PDT

>The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that if URNs are to be as
>persistent as possible, that they should be numeric (or alphanumeric codes
>like the LoC numbers or British/Canadian postal code system). If you use
>human-readable names like "proper" or "ibm" people will get emotional and/or
>possessive about them, making it much harder to prevent the URNs containing
>them from changing over time.

At the last URI meeting, it was suggested that adding a date stamp to
a DNS name might circumvent the impermanence of DNS names. The
granularity of the date stamp need not be small, e.g., just a year
might do, and certainly year/month.

dns-urn:ibm.com/1995/<ibm-document-id>

This would solve a variety of difficulties with potential reuse of
identifiers.

- Next message: Masataka Ohta: "Re: new port for DNS"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme"
- Next in thread: Michael Shapiro: "date in URN"
- Reply: Michael Shapiro: "date in URN"