Hi Scott,
> Second, what is the purpose of the exercise? I suspect that every
> practical use case knows what properties it needs already for its
> various identifiers. If you look at the requirements of a specific
> use case the properties fall out. One possible purpose I could see
> (and one I was trying to get at in my slides) would be to reduce the
> number of identifiers we think we need. What do you have in mind?
So, at a high order, I'm hoping to make forward progress. ;-)
More specifically, if we can converge on what properties we would like
identifiers to have, it might help to constrain the solution space.
First, there are a different uses for identifiers and each has
different requirements. Before we can talk about properties for
"identifiers" in general we need to separate out which particular uses
we are talking about. For example, are you including discovery
starting from FQDNs? Kerberos identifiers for auth/auth?
I'm trying to stay independent of any particular use case and look at
the abstract properties that we'd like to have in a locator/ID split.
To help simplify the discussion (I hope ;-), I'll certainly stipulate
that every solution is certainly going to have a number of identifiers.
I think we're most interested in the identifiers that correspond to
locators.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
