Re: [salud] AD review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12 (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 15 April 2014 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC97A1A06D4 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXgknLg0b4lH for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:56]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B891A06C3 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id pxZ11n0080bG4ec560lvtS; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:45:55 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id q0ls1n00Z1KKtkw3P0ltZ6; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:45:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s3F0jqJi004643; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:45:52 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s3F0jqY8004642; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:45:52 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:45:52 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: (Dale R. Worley)
To: Richard Barnes <>
In-reply-to: <> (
References: <> <> <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1397522755; bh=8UD8PTHuvQ2Ls3xbY/kP0XRJ/5v0AlOptHfYC/FJwSk=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=GXmwXPG2rDFgI1Oz52ZOpN/ugqTva0589CLnOq+Vs/YmNWGMhIagrIR3TX7L5wjwC Ef+miWacF7MYiExLPHcJ4Ow1NBnUFn9cj5VeMocskBw3UuXK3DUWO0jyP7Bs4a9AKL 3lp0PH95rL6cOZk4NNCNLypbkVk8SjW9BUVacG6LP3sPOz6KX6bzbDmFDtgfBWB+Qq 82QrDc14r8d+nA1Q7v4TE5qUfVrJjKL0rXW3SY4HeQ2+KPKSn3FzYtSFbriA0NBBHJ 1p/El1JxNXal3j+l/IcGspGYzrgmDCGOpXz9TLyVmUOsSL3WFaKtay2TLlYZswLoQq qUNLTU6Bg2Wzw==
Subject: Re: [salud] AD review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:46:04 -0000

> From: Richard Barnes <>
> > > It's not clear to me why you need all the date machinery in
> > > provider IDs.  This things are ephemeral -- why not just use the
> > > org that has the domain now?
> Fair enough.  Just wondering if we could simplify things, but it sounds
> like not.  Thanks!

> From: Paul Kyzivat <>

> There was quite a lot of thought and effort put into 
> the details of how the semantics are specified, and on the syntax, to 
> make it as convenient as possible to use. (E.g., what the defaults are.)

More explicitly:  If the date for a domain name is omitted, it
defaults to 2013-01-01, and that date is usable by any organization
which possessed its domain name on that date, or any organization
which acquires a new domain name in the future which was never owned
before.  The intention is to allow all existing telecomm equipment
vendors to be able to avoid using dates, and probably most vendors
that will be created in the future (if they're careful about choosing
a domain name).

Also, if a vendor's ownership of its domain name extends across Jan 1
of any year (and we expect that will be universal), they can use the
date 20xx-01-01, and that date can be abbreviated to just "xx".  That
shortens the date specifier to four characters, "(xx)", which we
consider is a reasonable overhead to trade for adhering to strict
time-invariance for URNs.