Re: ID wording

[Graham <dtcd@xxxxxxx>]

On 18 Aug 2004, at 3:57 pm, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> - The format for IDs is going to be URIs, not plain strings.
> - IDs must not change over time.
> - Even though the format is a URI, the IDs are not expected to be 
> dereferencable (although they might be).
> - IDs MUST be compared character-by-character, no case-mapping, no %xx 
> conversion, and so on.
> - Receiving and gateway systems MUST NOT alter IDs in any way.
> - Because IDs might be dereferenced, and because they must not be 
> changed, it is a good idea to create them in a canonicalized form. 
> There is no interoperability issues with this suggestion, so it is 
> just a suggestion, not a SHOULD-level suggestion.

Absolutely - see, that wasn't hard, was it? That's where the consensus 
has always been.

(I still don't understand the case for canonicalized ids - is there 
some reason for it beyond gateways that accidentally canonicalize not 
doing any damage?)

Graham

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature