# Re: Additional requirements for URCs?

Mitra (mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us)
Mon, 15 Aug 1994 11:18:32 -700 (PST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Previous message: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"

    Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 11:18:32 -700 (PST)

    From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    To: Michael Mealling <ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu>

    Subject: Re: Additional requirements for URCs?

    In-Reply-To: <199408151301.AA18429@oit.gatech.edu>

    Message-Id: <Pine.SCO.3.89.99.940815111735.6142B-100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>

On Mon, 15 Aug 1994, Michael Mealling wrote:
> That's one of the major reasons I don't want URNs tied to DNS. If you just
> make it a PubID devoid of FQDNs then anyone can assign withing a namespace.
> I very much want to see an 'alt' namespace where any tom,dick or harry can
> publish his recipe for marijuana brownies.....

Yes - but who assigns the namespaces? You cant do that with a flat model
(it doesnt scale), and if we are going to use a hierarchy, then we might
as well use DNS for it.

- Mitra

- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Previous message: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"