Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hello Jim,

Is that because a random identifier is technically bad/inappropriate, or 
you just don't think that wide acceptance is possible where there is any 
hint of ambiguity in the identfier?

Brett.

PS. Or having just seen JinHyeock's post was "id" referring to the whole 
framework I-D and not just a link identifier.

Bound, Jim wrote:
> The odds of us getting wide agreement on an id of this nature is NULL
> IMO.
> /jim 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
>>[mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
>>Brett Pentland
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:00 PM
>>To: Brett Pentland
>>Cc: JinHyeock Choi; Erik Nordmark; dna@eng.monash.edu.au; 
>>JinHyeock Choi
>>Subject: Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D
>>
>>
>>>sufficient for this purpose and is simple.  Assigning a truely 
>>>globally unique identifier would require some kind of registry or 
>>>central control.  I don't think you would do this "for 
>>
>>simplicity's sake".
>>
>>Oops.  I guess address prefixes could be used to come up with 
>>a globally unique link identfiers.  Brain not working properly.  :)
>>
>>I still think that a random identfier is sufficient and very simple.
>>
>>Brett.
>