Re: draft-ietf-impp-pres-01

Graham,

Would you mind elaborating on that point in the context of this thread?

Thanks

Thanos

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Klyne" <[email protected]>
To: "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-impp-pres-01


> General agreement.
>
> If an application is forced to maintain context, that exposes a possible
> DoS attack.
>
> #g
> --
>
> At 03:20 PM 1/14/03 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Thanos,
> >
> >My own opinion about the choice:
> >
> >If an identifier is being used only within a continuing context -- ie,
> >very short-term usage -- then context-based identifiers are fine.
> >
> >As soon as the identifier has any complexity of use, either from having
> >an extended lifetime or from being used across multiple contexts -- even
> >when they are logically the same context but involve interruptions of
> >service -- then self-identifying identifiers are much, much better.
> >
> >The concern about saving bits is usually not worth having dominate the
> >design choice for such things, in application protocols.
> >
> >d/
> >
> >Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 12:31:13 PM, you wrote:
> >Thanos> I was talking about the difference between context-based
> >uniqueness (what I
> >Thanos> called the relaxed one - where the context is the
> >watcher/presentity pair)
> >Thanos> and self-identified (which I think we called "globally unique").
> >
> >Thanos> In addition to the trade-offs mentioned below, there is also the
> >issue of
> >Thanos> generating the extra bits for a self-identified unique
identifier,
> >as well
> >Thanos> as the burden of ensuring that this identifier is globally
unique.
> >Thanos> Whoever/whatever is generating those bits must have the means to
> >ensure
> >Thanos> self-identified uniqueness.
> >
> >Thanos> Instead of arguing how much that burden is, I was wondering
> >whether there
> >Thanos> are any reasons to go with a globally unique one, keeping in
mind,
> >that
> >Thanos> there is nothing that prevents us from using a globally unique
> >identifies,
> >Thanos> in a specific To/From context.  It would still be unique.
> >
> >
> >
> >d/
> >--
> >  Dave <mailto:[email protected]>
> >  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions,
please]
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
>
>




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]