Re: ID wording

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Pilgrim wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:33:38 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, "rough consensus" doesn't mean having a quick vote and then
>>telling people who raise objections to be silent.
>
> The quick vote exposed the fact that we already had overwhelming
> consensus.  Which we still do


The beginning of this thread makes canonicalization a "suggestion".
Julian and Mark: do you agree that Paul's email captures consensus?

Robert Sayre

Paul Hoffman / IMC 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?