Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID - draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 9/23/11 10:26 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> From: PFAUTZ, PENN L [[e-mail]]
>>
>> The outstanding issues seemed to be
>>
>> 1. Is a new resource assignment necessary for the URN or could an
>> existing one, Private Enterprise Numbers or ITADs be used with a URN
>> defined to provide a fixed length parameter as requested in the I-D?
>>
>> 2. Assuming a fixed length parameter will be used, what’s the right
>> length?
> I am in favor of using one of the existing identifiers so as to avoid
> the proliferation of registries.

I think Dale is 100% correct here. We already have a couple of candidate 
registries, one of which has exactly and precisely the properties 
required. At least, for the properties that have been expressed so far 
(except possibly a hierarchical system; which, as Dale pointed out, is 
fully at odds with the requirement for a fixed-length identifier).

http://www.iana.org/assignments/trip-parameters/trip-parameters.xml#trip-parameters-5

These numbers are 32 bits long, which you can model syntactically as a 
fixed-length ten-digit number by zero-padding anything shorter than ten 
digits. For example, ITAD 1020 would be represented as "0000001020".

I don't think it makes even a little bit of sense talking about setting 
up another registry until someone can lucidly explain what properties 
the ITAD registry has that diverge from the properties being proposed 
for the new registry.

/a