Re: future of identifiers

manning bill <> Tue, 29 October 2013 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542EA21E8113 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBxdzJhBGw5I for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5CA21E8186 for <>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9TGi1Ru019734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: future of identifiers
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: manning bill <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:44:05 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Patrik Fältström <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>, " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:03:28 -0000

On 29October2013Tuesday, at 9:30, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 29 okt 2013, at 12:23, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
>> On 10/29/13 5:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Patrik Fältström <> wrote:
>>>> 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. 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).
>>> Having sat through many of those discussions with Patrik 15 years ago: +1
>> And having chaired NSRG, + 1/2.  That is- it's always fair to look at
>> new developments, but let's at least be aware of what was covered by
>> others and build on their success (or avoid their failures).
> Just to make my point clear. I absolutely do believe more thinking is needed. What was done 15 years ago never finished. I claim partly because we did not know the answers to all questions.
> My only point is that I think it would be sad to restart the discussion from zero. We both good and bad experience if we look back in history. We made mistakes then, but we also have successes. I here talk about URI-related discussions, whois++ (etc), Dublin Core, OID and what not.
> Same with the 10+(?) years of ID/Loc split discussions. Lots and lots of experience. 
> And of course the experience enterprises like Facebook, Twitter etc have from their what I would call private namespaces.
>   Patrik
	lets not forget x500 and quipu & giant tortoise…