Re: Vehicle's VIN in IPv6.

Scott Brim <> Thu, 31 March 2011 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEAB28C1FE for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Se73LNo2Q8xN for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFD828C1B1 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2529271iwn.31 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JKKHeqwFPgBMqRqwvg/la9Jcg7uIUhuUIMwHT1aFoBU=; b=PlPBmEIRR0/vV7A47zvzMozkPE6WXcIdj6hzksrERFNtEeSx6WgSuX6XxvoaIcRcE9 kGHv1f91AYQlRg7+6+MAMVIt4PuBamgsGnBBzthkROYm/32F8WfRJJfWf5lscAcP5k4v qZ0hWM0RbGKGUI6OhxqvvCAQIgjXrK1+jCIoM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bd5Yqm7+burE6Do+JrHWYU2oY8V4EkB5usJ4299yHxlftVb+GBpt5+Ryb2Su9LdxJg 3HOSXMOlTdMs979kDEFlUClUItD7wDAOrWIJ+JkSuP4oIFcjBe7GA+mfuWCI/XFJl7m5 ANceww3Ir4XRfrwPITsCiKwvQ1MJMUbUo+AtY=
Received: by with SMTP id d8mr2762933icz.281.1301564037053; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <5C4A2B87ED124653A9BDEDAC14D6F2C8@sparrow> <> <> <> <>
From: Scott Brim <>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:33:37 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Vehicle's VIN in IPv6.
To: George Michaelson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:32:41 -0000

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:16, George Michaelson <>; wrote:
>>  Internet location
>> and
>>  Endpoint identification for use by applications
>> are totally different functions and in the long run everything is
>> easier if they are kept separate.
> I *think* I'd do a 'no disagree +1' on that, but maybe thats another conversation.
>>  It's taken us 20 years to get to
>> the point where we might be able to separate them.  Let's help others
>> not go through the same learning experience.
> Like I said, the conversation is going to happen, and we have to face their expectations. I think its being done individually, industrial sector by sector. My first introduction was the smart whitegoods sector, washing machines and the like. I had no exposure to the car segment but its clear high-value goods attract 'smart' solutions labels like flies to honey.
> I don't think "go away" is the right answer. I think "your model has flaws" is closer.

Someone (IAB? ISOC?) needs to publish something to the world about
separation of functions, and the perils of mixing locators and
identifiers.  We can help write it.

> The key message is that if they apply for patents in it (BMW) they clearly see dollar-signs and its very hard to trump money.

Hadn't thought of that.  Hm.