IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] WGLC for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 20 July 2015 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
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 CBC8C1B2A6F for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 PWeGeo57jQTk for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 576FB1B2A6E for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbcc4 with SMTP id cc4so43815597wgb.3 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8TsPhxOmRMVL5uhmJobdveLjIEs66NbK2t7rKtvm0DI=; b=opOseqh8xf7YqH9jf/9fUfv8iWYGBEtTXX0phVkbnSSLdH+qYcalZ7L663SYx0MpQJ BSZzrqBue3P4Vxbd/0A+HYQDDorrwP1KVQzw+2sedkjM1XUji41Fg4eBV7dlTD1Kj3ao beZeLsPr3M9yqx3VUl+FqMRUs/uJfJ2ju5Qc6UsrJAu5Hx1BYc1ADdgkn6rt5HoB+FEI 4hhLHEomCOKAz1kGhRvXdpfW0HmvWv3+JDsUv+/pKqXKVyzNOYfY164nNIW1hIL+Dm0+ bTWgJjvGayZ4dj7csjJoVu5l8Bj5AlUqCE6FSnNimOru3pbgkQJOFf4sRFrE/1o3iAoM fSOQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.5.103 with SMTP id r7mr57645485wjr.47.1437415718069; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:136:e497:a2ce:99fb:df9a? ([2001:67c:370:136:e497:a2ce:99fb:df9a]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r8sm7653873wiz.5.2015.07.20.11.08.36 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
References: <COL125-W4170BE78E2C2F41BC3A6B4B19B0@phx.gbl> <79C18793-758C-421A-A0C6-2F5625F1E17E@gmx.com>
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55AD3922.8090009@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <79C18793-758C-421A-A0C6-2F5625F1E17E@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/W9HGTrx85YuN9pOvQ0M0xcEWrrE>
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <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 <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:08:41 -0000

Ian,

So would UUID be adequate PVD-ID format as suggested below?

What about the additonal information part? Not needed?

- Jouni


7/20/2015, 7:33 AM, Ian Farrer kirjoitti:
> 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)
>    and allow for additional info to be a part of the ID. So can we
>    try to reach consensus on each?
>
> Who thinks we should move to one unique format?
>   (a couple of hands; 2nd time asking had about 10 hands)
> Who thinks we should not use a single unique format?
>   (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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email