IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: future of identifiers

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 29 October 2013 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 6778211E8164 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 4K85C6FtElUw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F181411E8137 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9TGGvB0010658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:16:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: future of identifiers
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <563C58B6-DD66-4CDD-969A-0DAF7DA205D9@frobbit.se>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:16:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <98DF3DC1-2B5E-43E5-9AE4-0213BD73F3DC@vpnc.org>
References: <9F02AA5D-4146-4F8D-B635-DE5B44A9DA9A@piuha.net> <563C58B6-DD66-4CDD-969A-0DAF7DA205D9@frobbit.se>
To: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:17:05 -0000

On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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

If ICANN wants to create and control some additional identifier spaces, let them spend/waste their resources on all those questions.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email