At 11:17 AM 2/21/02 -0800, Jeff Stephenson wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 10:34 AM
> Having transient, non-permanent entries would break the RFC
> 1737 persistence requirements for URNs.
The paragraph you're referring to in RFC 1737 is (I think):
It is intended that the lifetime of a URN be
permanent. That is, the URN will be globally unique forever, and
may well be used as a reference to a resource well beyond the
lifetime of the resource it identifies or of any naming authority
involved in the assignment of its name.
Yes, and there's also this:
o Global uniqueness: The same URN will never be assigned to two
different resources.
If every hare-brained idea for a new header gets a permanently allocated
name to satisfy this condition, then the interesting parts of namespace are
potentially liable to to be committed. I think it's helpful if a degree of
community consensus is required to obtain a unique, permanent allocation.
It specifically states that the resource itself needn't be permanent,
just the URN. As long as the registry entries are given unique and
non-repeating URNs, a single registry would satisfy RFC 1737.
I understand the document to be saying something slightly different; viz
the other point noted above. Once a name is allocated permanently in this
way, then some record must be maintained as a guard against reallocation.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham(_dot_)Klyne(_at_)Baltimore(_dot_)com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------