Jeff W. Boote wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Jeff W. Boote wrote:
Here I disagree 100%. That is like saying that FQDN's should not have any structure or implicit type information etc...
Ah! So what actually underlies this whole discussion is the issue of naming and addressing. Please, take the time to read: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/ien/ien19.txt
Not at all. I think you misunderstand my point. I do not for a moment want to combine names and addresses. That is a useful and needed layer of indirection that I want to make use of.
From example #1 in that document - the first step is to look up the name in the phone book. My point is that I don't want a single phone book because that does not scale well and does not allow each 'publisher' the ability to control who they share addresses with. Therefore, the name needs to have enough information to direct you to the correct phone book. This is not about finding the address (yet), it is about finding the correct phone book.
Okay, I agree that finding the correct phone book is the next step once you have an identifier. However, unlike FQDNs, we can give the location of the phonebook along with the identifier that we're sending. There is no necessity to encode that information in the identifier itself. Note that this also allows you to have two completely different identifiers, each defined by their own domain, yet pointing to the same thing (and they'll probably have an equality relation to each other as well). Jeroen.