Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values

Paul Kyzivat <> Tue, 20 May 2014 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8FA1A03B6 for <>; Tue, 20 May 2014 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iERVBjSJX82Q for <>; Tue, 20 May 2014 16:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892D91A03B1 for <>; Tue, 20 May 2014 16:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id 4P0M1o0051vXlb855P6GhK; Tue, 20 May 2014 23:06:16 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by with comcast id 4P6G1o00S3ZTu2S3dP6GWc; Tue, 20 May 2014 23:06:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:06:16 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1400627176; bh=qxQqMpjNLGFbAdUnSnYB9Zc3OtZGRXLiLqakihCEMwI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=giUA8MMCuKNPpGXFs1ASetPNYn3xpkH04n8O2cFg880L/592FRTtylUoMG2oHGzSp sfbEKJDWS7U8+FRJCWsPQzkTh9bQyE5RNfej9Vhw9za/G4VOrh/Npd4RfOQfnV5+Kk AdD2rnRhGMPbyuReNgEKnwWgcZDtU/2r4WiOz/sROnTX7JBQ0pWk2RYRVfz57+82K6 oLcY1IoiMyUw2TGwj1F9xJ/3gei2jJMOUycLNF19iOtXUnrY3//agcV84IH3xvxPXk 23lLNhOLar7AZpcDsNBxBfUlwJshKOcWVax75w+pSTN5coz2p0+eI27JTggMiXu1i4 JR5t0tpk8ZRgg==
Subject: Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 23:06:19 -0000

On 5/20/14 4:15 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> [as an author]
> Let's look at the going back to using only domain names as <provider>
> values.
> Barry Lieba suggests that we can get that version of the proposal
> approved by the URN people.
> Revising the text will be straightforward.
> In a sense, using bare domain names is no different than using domain
> names qualified with dates:  The person who defines a new private-name
> must be aware of the private-names that have previously been created
> using the same provider value.

This is the main part that gives me heartburn.
*How* will the new owner of the domain be aware of names created by the 
prior owner(s)?

If the new owner acquires the business of the old owner then it may be 
reasonable to expect that it could learn this.

But when the old owner simply ceased paying to own the name, perhaps 
because it went out of business, then the new owner may have no avenue 
to discover the old private-names.

For that matter, since private names don't need to be published, it is 
possible for a company that continues to own the domain to "forget" the 
private-names it has minted. Perhaps the department that did it was axed.

In practice I am quite certain that what we *really* expect is that most 
private names will be *very* private, and that they will fall out of use 
when the owner disappears. Collisions will be rare, and unimportant if 
they do occur.

Perhaps we would be better off with just a FCFS registry with expert 
review, and perhaps an encouragement to put your organization identity 
into the ids you mint.


> The advantage of date-qualified providers is that an organization that
> has just acquired a domain name can create a provider value using
> today's date, and that provider is guaranteed to not have yet been
> used to create a private-name, because it cannot have been used before
> today.
> On the other hand, it is not difficult to acquire a domain name that
> has not been used before.  I did DNS searches for random domain names
> under .COM.  It turns out that most 4-letter domain names have been
> registered, but very few of the 5-letter domain names (as a proportion
> of the total number that are possible) have been registered.  I looked
> at random domain names under .DE and got similar results.  (I chose
> .DE because it is the most popular two-letter TLD that I know of that
> allows second-level names to be registered.)  So if an organization
> wants a short, new domain name to register to use for private-names,
> they can probably construct one from some abbreviation of their
> company's name.
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list