Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 23 February 2012 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD9F21F86C3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:30:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.38
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bgb17W1ULnzM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D74821F86A7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [64.101.72.114]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A1BC40058; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:42:12 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F4685DC.6080801@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:30:52 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <4F463F5C.7020104@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F463F5C.7020104@piuha.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:30:58 -0000
On 2/23/12 6:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > we know that the third variant, > cryptographic identifiers, is not strictly speaking aligned with current > requirements on what URNs must satisfy, as cryptographic identifiers > have only statistical, not administered uniqueness. Jari, in what respect is that different from UUIDs (RFC 4422)? Neither has administered uniqueness, but folks on the urn@ietf.org list convinced me last year that urn:uuid is perfectly acceptable; see the thread starting here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01612.html Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- [apps-discuss] Device URNs Jari Arkko
- Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs Jari Arkko
- Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Device URNs Jari Arkko