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

Well OK.  At least there is some consensus that the concept of a global SPID
is "a good thing" tm or "Very Important Thing" tm as Dean points out. The
issue then is the name space and the size of the name space.  ?????

Hopefully we can dismiss this idea of reusing ITAD and focus on what is the
best way forward since it is manifestly self evident that a correctly
designed solution WILL get used and we have evidence that national specific
instances ( North American SPID's) have and do work successfully. 

The point of this exercise is to internationalize a successful and well
observed innovation in the network. 

I'll be even clearer here. This issue of a global SPID came up in the ITU
and there were very very specific objections by certain ( to remain
nameless) governments that the ITU should not define what is and what is not
a service provider. I personally think those objections were correct and
proper. The end result of that effort was this draft and IMHO the IETF and
the RAI community needs to give this discussion careful consideration and
chart a consensus path forward.   

-----Original Message-----
From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Livingood, Jason
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Dean Willis; rai@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

>On the other hand, perhaps we're being wildly optimistic about the
>importance of the SPID and the future demand for them.
>
>One might also note that 32 bits is a nice fixed-length number in binary
>(32 digits), quaternary (16 digits), or hexadecimal (8 digits). Why are
>we restricting ourselves to 10 decimal digits, which doesn't map to
>anything binary in a very nice way?

+1
Machines are going to process this stuff in practice anyway, so we needn't
worry that these #s are too long to remember or whatever. Also, now that I
am in the midst of IPv6 deployment I tend to be of the opinion that a
bigger initial address space is better. This is especially the case as
we're not exactly storage or processing constrained in key systems that
would be used.

Feel free to override this one opinion. I just don't want to be on a panel
discussion in 10+ years talking about why we choose such a small SPID
length. ;-)

Jason

_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai