# URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)

Pierre Landau (pierre@indirect.com)
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:18:32 -0700 (MST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Next in thread: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)"
- Maybe reply: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)"
- Reply: Mark Madsen: "URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues"

    From: Pierre Landau <pierre@indirect.com>

    Message-Id: <199507101918.MAA15589@bud.indirect.com>

    Subject: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:18:32 -0700 (MST)

> From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
> To: "'URI'" <uri@bunyip.com>
> Subject: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues
> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 11:41:00 PDT
> Message-Id: <30017541@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>
> Encoding: 29 TEXT
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
> Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
> Precedence: bulk
>
>
> Because the mere knowledge that a string is a valid URN can useful in some
> contexts, it is advisable to have mechanisms that prevent the discovery of
> this fact. Any generally useful resolution service must be able to not only
> refuse to resolve a URN (or URL), it must be able to avoid giving the
> impression that what was handed to it was a valid URN or URL to begin with.

Maybe I'm missing something here. My understanding of the motivation
behind the creation of a URN was to say "I'm now publishing something I
want people to read/use/whatever; here's a persistent name for that object."
Any URN registry service must be able to answer the question of whether a
URN exists in order to decide whether it can be assigned to a new object.
If you're playing with confidential information, what is it doing on an
essentially public network, where security is basically nonexistent?

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Next in thread: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)"
- Maybe reply: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues (fwd)"
- Reply: Mark Madsen: "URN Resolution Security and Privacy Issues"