Hi Scott,
Scott Brim wrote:
In actual use the owner may have committed to a minimum duration.
Brian's phrasing is better imho.
Ok, I can live with that.
- unambiguous
I'd say: must have a defined scope within which they are unique and
unambiguous. The scope may be universal. [Now define 'universal'.
It's not so easy.]
How about 'global' instead?
Do we really want local identifiers?
Let's not assume too much about solutions. Everything has scope.
Again, the point of the discussion is to figure out what classes of
solutions actually are appropriate. It seems to me like supporting
local identifiers is worthy of discussion.
I've seen one advocate for them (ILNP), where they make a handy
opportunity for those folks who prefer privacy. Changing your locator
to something with local scope does provide benefits in that area, but it
creates issues in others. Do identifiers now come in a split namespace?
Here there be complexity... ;-) Are folks ok with this?
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
