Re: [salud] AD review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > From: Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>
> >
> > I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC.  Thanks for a
> > clearly written document!  I especially liked the style of the
> Terminology
> > section.  I've requested LC, and a few comments to address along with any
> > LC comments are below.
>
> [as chair]
>
> Many thanks!
>
> [as an author]
>
> We will review your comments carefully.
>
> I'll start off with the one I can give an immediate answer to:
>
> > 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?
>
> The problem is that these are URNs and so their meanings, once set,
> have to be fixed for all time.  That point was raised vividly by the
> URN people.  Adding the date to a domain name gives it a
> time-invariant meaning.
>
> And though the "visible" use of an alert-info URN is transient, from
> the caller to the callee, both the caller and the callee keep a list
> of the alert-info URNs that they understand and the meanings that they
> attach to them.  And this is telephony equipment, which can have a
> lifetime of over a decade.  So you don't want the expiration of some
> company's domain registration to require that all the phones that know
> of their private extension URNs to have to be reprogrammed.
>

Fair enough.  Just wondering if we could simplify things, but it sounds
like not.  Thanks!

--Richard



>
> Dale
>