At 18:01 11/05/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
Although I agree with Frank on many other items, I disagree strongly on this one. It is very important for people to be able to depend on stability in IDs, and the whole purpose of a canonical ID would be subverted if we allowed it to be unstable. Stability gives implementations the assurance that once an ID is transformed into a canonical form, you can store it and always be assured that a comparison of the same ID put in canonical form by any other conformant implementation, at any other time, will match. If not, then it's only "mostly-canonical", and that is of limited use.
Mark,I am sorry, Frank is right. You cannot be cannonical with tables you do not control. This is precisely the problem the charter wants us to address. Stability is not in the ID but in the documented object. You have two possibilities: to attach a date to the ID or to define your own canonical table and relate it to the ID.
jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.