John, > John C Klensin wrote: > My ambitious in raising these questions are _very_ limited > and, in particular, I don't see this as a back door to > solving the non-DNS, topology-independent, persistent > identifier problem. (It seems to me that needs to be solved > through the front door, or not at all.). I'm with you here. So, we know we need something more universal, but in the meantime we band-aid FTP to keep going. Because of its special status and the fact that it is widespread, FTP might justify doing the work for only one protocol. It is clear that to be worthy of the effort, this should be deployed way before a persistent identifier solution is rolled out though. As long as I'm not the one doing the work I don't have a problem with it :-D However, I do have a concern: when later a generic identifier mechanism is deployed, we will have two standards. Have you had any thoughts on the possible collisions there? Michel.