Re: future of identifiers

Toerless Eckert <> Wed, 06 November 2013 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A631421E8136 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:54:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.228
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N63816TA91MO for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073DC21E8122 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:54:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2174; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383706450; x=1384916050; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=KsGbyi2GtLTt4S6jlkC5ndk3oyxwA9Ekq7/gsga+3Uk=; b=Z660n7sDuo9PqQBmXcH/TyL12aeP8SQ7cCL9eUCv4TWhSz9xB2ZJWUVX NVlkErTUi0p5qjH2ZaMmExCkbb9YpTvrh0xNzSiv4QMFoaEe7zPnYkh/t UuzbauUcdbcRyRu8rO86eyymkyMk5iTBmKwKdT+hp+1w9UmO2OrLK5uTb k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,643,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="94159334"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2013 02:54:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA62s7Bj011948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:54:08 GMT
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA62s67f028918; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/Submit) id rA62s64C028914; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:54:06 -0800
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
Subject: Re: future of identifiers
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Cc: " 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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:54:15 -0000

Nice use case, Fred. Hope you got one of those sensors for your
own underbrushes. I am sure though, that if this is deployed by a
government agency, everything has unique identities, just for keeping
the bureaucracy happy with inventory maintenance and re-supply processes.

Would be nice though if the concept of anonymous identy was better
embodies in the IETF architecture.


On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:36:42AM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Larry Masinter <> wrote:
> >> it might be a good thing if we were to first identify what needs to be identified.
> > 
> > "Everything" needs to be identified. 
> I'm not sure I buy that.
> Let me give you an example. Deborah Estrin did some research a number of years ago with the California Division of Forestry, USC/ISI (which is where she was at the time), and UCSB on the use of a randomly distributed sensor network in managing wildfires. The premise was that an airplane might pitch out styrofoam "golf balls" that contained, each, a watch battery, a cheap GPS, a silicon radio that might be able to reach a few hundred meters, and silicon pretty comparable to the inside of a wristwatch. The device, when it landed, would figure out where it was to a level of accuracy on the order of tens of meters and then turn off the GPS. After that, it would periodically wake up, hear statements from its neighbors, and then make a statement. The statement would be of the form "I am located <here>, and I can hear {<list of locations>}." The statement might also include zero or more statements of the form "location <there> is reportedly [no longer] speaking."
> In the nature of the case, if the fire ate up a sensor, it would stop commenting, and the fact of its doing so would rattle around the network until it got to someone that cared, such as an application on a PC. But it is not reported as "Larry's favorite golfball isn't speaking". It's "GPS Location XX/YY isn't speaking".
> In this context, the locations need to be identified, but not the golf balls (nobody speaks TO them, so they don't need an address).