RE: Ping

Your observation about OID is interesting.  At the meeting where it was
discussed, the "immutability" of it was seen as a benefit.  I can agree that
when companies restructure, merge or split, they still have to deal with who
gets the OID space, but I think the point was that the appearance of the URL
scheme would not change, just the behind-the-scenes ownership.  The problem
with DNS is that as companies change, the DNS name changes, and it has a
visible impact on the URL scheme.  For instance, my co-chair's company has
gone through several changes lately, and instead of being
[email protected], he's now [email protected].  No scheme is perfect in
this regard, but OID really conceals this well.  Of course, it's a pain to
work with....  

Will you be at the Minneapolis meeting next week?  Perhaps we need to do a
lunch or bar session; I'll talk with my co-chair, and we will put a notice
on the board if we organize something.  Otherwise, he's in a lot of the
security sessions, and I'm in a lot of the app-area sessions -- grab us and
bend our ears.  :-)  

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig A. Finseth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:54 PM
To: Ian King
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ping

[snip]

   You mention other properties that appear to have vanished -- can you be
more
   specific?  I'd really like to discuss them, both here on the list and at

There was a belief that the OID would not have to change in the case
of an organizational structure change (e.g., merger/split).  I have
seen no evidence that this would be the case and evidence that it
would not.

   least informally in Minneapolis; the process doc is not set in stone, but
we
   would like to get it finished soon.  

I'd be happy to get together to talk (I'm from Mpls/St Paul).  When/where?

[snip]