IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Fri, 30 September 2011 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Original-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D39721F8C91 for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqwVD3+KrLkp for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B8B21F8C86 for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.digium.internal ([10.24.55.203] helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1R9fYm-0003Y5-Mh for rai@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:03:36 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3097D82A3 for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:03:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GjOqydeM3GSQ for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:03:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51004D8024 for <rai@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:03:36 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E85E857.8050900@digium.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:03:35 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rai@ietf.org
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B222B1F590A@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <CAA62EE0.3B275%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <38726EDA2109264987B45E29E758C4D6022C0F@MISOUT7MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <00ab01cc7d31$2cfa1c40$86ee54c0$@us> <4E820778.1070807@softarmor.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220CE44FF@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <D74629EC-D802-4A33-82AE-DA2A76EA5996@bbn.com> <4E82832E.3090600@nostrum.com> <F3561159-7AE5-46D7-8577-EB765FD84C51@acmepacket.com> <4E84E2E8.6000102@softarmor.com> <031101cc7f0f$ec3fe870$c4bfb950$@us> <4E85B6CA.4090607@digium.com> <003701cc7f87$62f15f40$28d41dc0$@us>
In-Reply-To: <003701cc7f87$62f15f40$28d41dc0$@us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01
X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <rai.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai>
List-Post: <mailto:rai@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:00:43 -0000

On 09/30/2011 10:41 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> I always prefer clarity in my responses. :-)
>
> I rather dislike the argument that ..well the ITAD's are there,  they might
> work,  so go use them and go away now.
>
> There is a preference here for a new fixed length identifier in a non
> polluted name space so the counter argument is why is there a problem here?

So far, the definition of 'pollution' doesn't appear to make sense (at 
least to me): the requirements for the new namespace won't do anything 
to stop it becoming as equally 'polluted' as the ITAD namespace is.

The 'problem' is that the IETF is being asked to do work (drafting and 
publishing documents, and operating an additional registry) without a 
clear differentiation from what is already being done. More work for an 
equivalent result seems wasteful, doesn't it?

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email