Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5881A890D for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:33:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1SDFoXN_cVK for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEE431A88F2 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-b16c.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.177.108]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5cpk-1Z21jm1hHM-00xbtv; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:33:38 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_419455A9-804E-4FF1-BA29-25F761202944" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Ian Farrer In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:33:37 +0200 Message-Id: <79C18793-758C-421A-A0C6-2F5625F1E17E@gmx.com> References: To: Hui Deng X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:qYthxkCLFG8Wi0FTHYhCew+LHuUXIFLdKjAFEtXg4WyGg9mVYfa Ys7LEAM3f34guF+B+01ZcEkWYgl5M3Lrxy02sURGf1rxMpXn8AYnvShkHVAtJyXc7gyY6CC eGa1TaKXwJNS18lFgLNs46mRqy5vO/L5Bj2wm7zSmdPXUbNyu+fT+W5A4Rudn9gwsdX3dX+ YIYRDUnZIDEhBjhuiUf+w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:u/kASnwLtJo=:ofORxz5p8uoPS5HsV5UqAU 9jeLWzf70sMqBmfGhnjVk2tmGyDVcg1WQipdml55nk2M+ooAPUR0Ms1A4WL1uZx4IQta2Wv36 2KyWBkDZQspXej8RAzRfyo057ni+cmbBniC/IXB1gmwXaAunso1bepXOesTyaWL+opQF3tgcw 4CxenURaOxC5cDTRtsLFeyh11ZEH7Gi8QjZp4Bmkb1t3XEEo00cn5XCQ8v15acCd4PAo0bGiL MGfqx5puNmKUzovb09FwpwnUuVApn2bufVe69JK+3BO78y9Ov12noItxMqcjQlsBOtuU6tnub t6dVzqAzE6aNv1p7BfVqh0MqAyYwTvLLOLg3eFu/Ym4XEug96TzTEcmYgcUCDNclxexY5ywpc 0cKZ6wf7O3+H1rkXz6/oNMu0cIbW8E6OdkAardHUtLoXYKqOtrJKSvqSFFw5fvlqaGtUSSUWM 7EnrkMCFShpXQeXVHdZ9wIXCo1WO6nB03enQ6nR4uTVjRbBNMnKY4wSoSAi4G2V0BPIB6hQsb YPHfD+AHOT8+NlNs8DuyOP4Lmh8RxVp8XyMO7zlvTzXrCjMUKCDBlzi34//gU8at7NSMSMpLB +69yVXBso08SVhvPSHZjLUn2mojy8l6DoB9hyVIScNTg0c97g0oXI1PuEQ0X1yLMU9YVSEeC3 UQH5K02jz5JRNR1s0dqhiV/cWOb+Mxtq/rEymF5QZHIoAlPpm1urOCuz9rURZ054b39c= Archived-At: Cc: "mif@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [mif] WGLC for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:33:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_419455A9-804E-4FF1-BA29-25F761202944 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, Before this document can proceed, I think that there is still a = significant open point. Multiple or single PVD ID formats? This question has been raised a few times at WG meetings, but there is = no reflection in the draft as it stands. This is an excerpt from the = IETF91 minutes: Margaret: 2 changes proposed: move to single unique short ID (UUID)=20 and allow for additional info to be a part of the ID. So can we=20 try to reach consensus on each? Who thinks we should move to one unique format?=20 (a couple of hands; 2nd time asking had about 10 hands) Who thinks we should not use a single unique format?=20 (no hands) OK. Single unique. So, I would like to see this discussion take place before the document = progresses. Thanks, Ian > On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:18, Hui Deng wrote: >=20 > Hello all, > =20 > We would like to have a 3 weeks WGLC for the below document: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id/ = > =20 > Please help to send your comments to this thread. > This WGLC will end on Aug. 5th. > =20 > Many thanks > =20 > DENG Hui > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif = --Apple-Mail=_419455A9-804E-4FF1-BA29-25F761202944 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi,

Before this document can proceed, I = think that there is still a significant open point. Multiple or single = PVD ID formats?

This question has been raised a few times at WG meetings, but = there is no reflection in the draft as it stands. This is an excerpt = from the IETF91 minutes:

Margaret: 2 changes proposed: move to single unique short ID =
(UUID)=20
  and allow for additional info to be a part of the ID. So can we=20
  try to reach consensus on each?

Who thinks we should move to one unique format?=20
 (a couple of hands; 2nd time asking had about 10 hands)
Who thinks we should not use a single unique format?=20
 (no hands)
 OK. Single unique.
So, I would like to see this = discussion take place before the document progresses.

Thanks,
Ian



On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:18, Hui = Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello all,
 
We would like to have a 3 weeks WGLC for = the below document:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id/
 
Please help to send your comments to = this thread.
This WGLC will end on Aug. 5th.
 
Many thanks
 
DENG Hui
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

= --Apple-Mail=_419455A9-804E-4FF1-BA29-25F761202944--