Re: future of identifiers

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 31 October 2013 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D0511E80EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 reUjJh-9-gMT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE0011E8132 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E692CC6B; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:06:48 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XRRT_TGOJL1R; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:06:48 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F064A2CC48; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:06:47 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: future of identifiers
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <563C58B6-DD66-4CDD-969A-0DAF7DA205D9@frobbit.se>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:06:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FA1A0900-81B0-4F03-B78E-547DC734455E@piuha.net>
References: <9F02AA5D-4146-4F8D-B635-DE5B44A9DA9A@piuha.net> <563C58B6-DD66-4CDD-969A-0DAF7DA205D9@frobbit.se>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:07:17 -0000

Patrik,

> I think it is important to not restart discussions already held regarding different requirements on identifiers, requirements that in turn lead to various alternatives on how they are allocated, managed and resolved.

Understood. Thanks.

> I do not think one can have one identifier that fits all. Instead multiple kind of identifiers are needed. Because of requirements on uniqueness (absolute, low risk of collisions or not needed at all), persistence, human readable/understandable, whether allocation and resolution should be designed for read (lookups) or write (allocation), what the identifier is to be used for (see id/loc discussions).

Agreed.

Jari