On 30/10/2013 05:30, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 29 okt 2013, at 12:23, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 10/29/13 5:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it is important to not restart discussions already held regarding different requirements on identifiers, requirements that in turn lead to various alternatives on how they are allocated, managed and resolved. I do not think one can have one identifier that fits all. Instead multiple kind of identifiers are needed. Because of requirements on uniqueness (absolute, low risk of collisions or not needed at all), persistence, human readable/understandable, whether allocation and resolution should be designed for read (lookups) or write (allocation), what the identifier is to be used for (see id/loc discussions). >>> Having sat through many of those discussions with Patrik 15 years ago: +1 >> And having chaired NSRG, + 1/2. That is- it's always fair to look at >> new developments, but let's at least be aware of what was covered by >> others and build on their success (or avoid their failures). > > Just to make my point clear. I absolutely do believe more thinking is needed. What was done 15 years ago never finished. I claim partly because we did not know the answers to all questions. Indeed. I have some half-baked thoughts about some aspects at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/IPAddressesConsideredHarmful.pdf Brian > > My only point is that I think it would be sad to restart the discussion from zero. We both good and bad experience if we look back in history. We made mistakes then, but we also have successes. I here talk about URI-related discussions, whois++ (etc), Dublin Core, OID and what not. > > Same with the 10+(?) years of ID/Loc split discussions. Lots and lots of experience. > > And of course the experience enterprises like Facebook, Twitter etc have from their what I would call private namespaces. > > Patrik >