Re: draft-ietf-impp-pres-01

Another point to consider is the complexity of comparisons withing
the context. I would very much prefer to avoid having URI comparisons
involved in comparisons of the subscription identifier.

RjS

On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 17:20, 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]





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