Re: ID wording

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Greetings again. Thanks for keeping the moratorium
> on ID discussion. 
> I thought it would be best to do a sanity check to
> be sure people 
> were in agreement on what it seems the consensus so
> far was.
> 
> - 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.
> 
> Does this match what people feel was the general
> consensus?

Yes, except for the stuff about IDs not being relative
URIs being missing. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #25
No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush