> From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> Or, perhaps we just make it more explicit that an identifier is a name
> that has no topological semantics and remove the object reference
> entirely? This would bring it back in line with the more generic meaning.
Works for me.
>> there's another important property, which is the _lifetime_ of [the]
>> name. Presumably one property of an [identifier] is that it should
> be permanent?
> Ok, but we already know that some people, for the sake of privacy, want
> to have temporary identifiers.
Good point. So, we can either have 'permanent identifiers' and 'temporary
identifiers'; or 'identifiers' and 'temporary identifiers' (i.e. the default
lifetime is 'permanent', and if you want non-permanent, you have to say so).
I'd go with the second, since I think that's probably the most useful, but I
could live with either.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
