On 20-Jan-06, at 7:37 AM, Peter Davis wrote:
The term 'addressing' worries me a little. That might just be a knee
jerk reaction from me though, based on my LDAP experience.
But that is what you get whenever you make a string (even opaque)
in some
namespace. When I give my dog a name, it's really just
virgil.peterdavis
(using, at least, a DNS like delegation notation).
Grumble... probably best as a beer based conversation. I award you one
beer token for redemption at the Dallas IETF.
This WG should not invent new identifiers. Use one of the (too)
many we've
got already.
Agree.
But I agree wrt the terms use here. s/address/identifier/; but
we'll get
both in the end. With the identifier alice, when asserted by foo,
you kinda
always end up with an address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or if you prefer alice!
fred ;-)
Good.
I'd be happier with 'uniform naming mechanism', which could be a
URI... people may want something other than an URI.
That works too.
OK
Was...
In the interests of flexibility and interoperability we would suggest
that the identifier be a string of characters. This working group may
consider current best practice of what that string might be. For
example, a URI, a URL or a UUID.
Is now...
The identifier should be based on existing identifier and namespace
mechanisms to ensure flexibility and interoperability, and the
working group should consider current best practice. For example, a
URI, a URL or a UUID.
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
