At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:18:24 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and
> neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to
> the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. I
> think even something as simple as this really needs to be committed to
> by an organization. So yeah, even "willing to take on the
> responsibility of owning that domain until such time as something useful
> can be done with it," I do not have, and to me that seems like a
> requirement, not just a nice to have.
I see your point. I believe that registering a domain would be less
work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t
know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus
bringing the conversation full circle). 
> But it certainly is another option. I feel like most people have the
> _expectation_ of http resolvability for http URIs though, even
> though it isn't actually required. If you want there to be an actual
> http server there at ALL, even one that just responds to all
> requests with a link to the SuDoc documentation, that's another
> thing you need.
I think there is a strong expectation that if I resolve a URI, I do
not end up with a domain squatter. Otherwise I am not so sure what is
expected when using an HTTP URI whose primary purpose is
identification, not dereferencing. Personally I would be happy to get
either a page telling me to check back later , or nothing at all.
1. My last word on this. Because I am already beating a dead horse, I
have put it in a footnote. For $100 and basically no time at all you
can have 10 years of sudoc.info. If it takes an organization more than
2 or 3 hours of work to register an info: URI, then domain
registration is a better deal, as I see it.
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library
;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3