Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

YangWoo Ko <newcat@spsoft.co.kr> Thu, 06 December 2001 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-irnss-errors@lists.elistx.com>
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GNX00504KBDN6@eListX.com> (original mail from newcat@spsoft.co.kr); Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:26:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GNX00501KBCN4@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:26:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GNX00501KBCN3@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:26:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from spsoft.co.kr ([211.254.82.194]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GNX003D1KBATF@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:26:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from newcat@localhost) by spsoft.co.kr (8.10.0/8.10.0) id fB6GNLL30139 for ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2001 01:23:21 +0900
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 01:23:21 +0900
From: YangWoo Ko <newcat@spsoft.co.kr>
Subject: Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3
In-reply-to: <7FC3066C236FD511BC5900508BAC86FE4D7823@trestles.internal.realnames.com>
To: ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com
Message-id: <20011207012321.F29209@spsoft.co.kr>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=euc-kr
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
References: <7FC3066C236FD511BC5900508BAC86FE4D7823@trestles.internal.realnames.com>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-irnss-help@lists.elistx.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-irnss>
List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin.shtml>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
List-Id: <ietf-irnss.lists.elistx.com>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:44:21AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > (i) I'm worried about scaling with them, and especially about
> > creating yet another situation in which someone has to decide who
> > is entitled ("has rights to", "has the best claim on", "most
> > closely matches") some word or string.   In a way, that is
> > another kind of economic constraint, but, if we can meet the
> > technical and end-user requirements without having to implicitly
> > write ICANN, WIPO, or the equivalent into the protocol, I think
> > that is desirable.   I believe that the "no overseer" requirement
> > is more easily satisfied with keywords at sublayer three than at
> > two.
> 
> I know that the introduction of category helps widen the space of potential
> common names for a given service type, but basically, it means IP lawyers
> still decide who can get what.

Dear Yves Arrouye,

If we do not give a specific group an authority to decide who can get,
let me handle "overseer" issue in an extremely dirty way. Let's add
"overseer" as a facet. Then, we have { name string, industry category,
country, overseer } tuple. If overseer is "trademark office" then all 
four attribute values are used to find a unique trademark from trademark
db. Else if overseer is "none" (or "keyword" ?) then "industry category"
field will be empty or not used even if supplied. Do you like it ?

My best regards

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : newcat@spsoft.co.kr
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/