Re: [XRIXDI] RE: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration

[Fen Labalme <fen@idcommons.org>]

Thanks for the clarification, Drummond.

Peter -

This now returns to my original question of you:

  Did you get a chance to look at the EnameRegistration page?
  http://xrixdi.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/XdiUseCases/EnameRegistration

  There's an issue regarding the fact that we are expecting the Registry
  to generate and return an e-number associated with an e-name that is
  being registered.  We considered having the Registrar generate the
  e-number, but as it is the Registry that "defines" a community (and
  ensures uniqueness of e-names within that community) it seems that the
  Registry ought also to generate the unique e-number.

We need to develop this protocol - would Ning be the point person at 
Neustar?  I notice he's not on either of these lists, so how would you 
suggest we move forward?

Fen


Drummond Reed wrote:
> Fen, per my last response to Victor, you are correct, I was assuming that
> the e-numbers were assigned by the Registry.
> 
> So =:1000/:1234 would be assigned by the = Registry, and could then be used
> as a cross-reference under their own e-number/e-name space by each Registrar
> or Data Broker that needs to reference the same logical registrant.
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:06 AM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: 'XDI TC'; xrixdi@idcommons.net
> Subject: Re: [XRIXDI] RE: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration
> 
> There's still the problem of who *chooses* the e-number being 
> registered.  A Registry working with several Registrars could not allow 
> each Registrar to define an e-number to be registered in the Registry's 
> "e-number-space" for reasons of e-number collisions.  In your previous 
> example (a few emails back), you wrote:
> 
>  >>>Global e-name: =Drummond
>  >>>Global e-number: =:1000/:1234

<snip>