# Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?"

Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:02:55 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com: "Forwarding: Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""
- Previous message: strasen.es_ae@xerox.com: "Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""

    Date: 	Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:02:55 PDT

    From: Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com

    Subject: Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?"

    In-Reply-To: <aacb085503021004998b@[198.133.26.187]>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Message-Id: <"20-Oct-94 15:02:50".*.Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@Xerox.com>

Mitra,

If there is a legacy issue, perhaps another approach would work better.

First off, the Internet (IETF?) could obtain either or both of an object identifier (root) or a registered owner-name and assign object identifiers and/or public identifiers on the basis of that.

Secondly, I don't know what the domain name syntax is, but if it is compatible with the ISO 9070 object-name component syntax you could grandfather existing domain names into the 9070 public identifier space by establishing a registered Internet owner-name (say <Internet-name>) and mapping existing domain names to "<Internet-name>//domain-name" ("//" being the separateor between the owner-name and the object-name. The Internet, as owner of <Internet-name>, could also append one or more owner-name components to <Internet-name) to create additional owner-names.

By the way, "hundreds of thousands . . . Domain names". Really ?!

Re: Your suggestion that the discussion be moved to uri@bunyip.com - I have no problem with that assuming that you think that there is a discussion which should be carried on in a larger forum.

Regards,

//Steve

- Next message: strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com: "Forwarding: Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""
- Previous message: strasen.es_ae@xerox.com: "Re: "why isn't IETF using FPIs?""