LogicalAddress vs URI for header document

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Some comments on the header document.

With regards to LogicalAddress, would we want to consider
use of URN as opposed to what is currently suggested.

  <Receiver>
    <LogicalAddress>
      <Identifier>12345</Identifier>
      <Domain>DUNS</Domain>
    </LogicalAddress>
    <Role>level 2</Role>
    <Name>level 2</Name>
  </Receiver>


Could be replaced by:

  <Receiver uri="urn:duns:12345"/>

or, optionally:

  <Receiver>
	<URI>urn:duns:12345</URI>
  </Receiver>

for the attribute challenged.

Use of the concepts specified in RFC2483, URI Resolution Services
Necessary for URN Resolution, as well as RFC 2168 and/or 2169
(DNS and/or THTTP) could be used to resolve the N2L (url or url list) 
or N2C (metadata) mapping for use within the transport/routing
mechanism.

This has the benefit of reducing the bandwidth requirements
of the header as well as permitting a wider range of potential
use than if all of the related information is packaged along
for the ride.

It would seem to me that this would also be valuable in
cases where multiple transport "hops" are required, each
possibly requiring its own intermediate destination possibly
carried over a disparate transport protocol.

Of course, this raises the issue of whether the transport/routing
should be dependent upon a/the registry/repository where the
mapping is stored.

Comments?

Chris