On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Essentially, such vendors have to rely on generating a sufficiently
long random number for the id-left to make it astronomically
improbable that a clash will occur.
Right. And, if a clash does occur, it's under a domain controlled by
the vendor, so we know who to blame, unlike <${random}(_at_)localhost> or
<${random}(_at_)${one_word_host_name}>. The point is that the owner of the
id-right domain takes responsibility for ensuring uniqueness of the
id-left within the scope of that domain.
We mght have some discussion as to whether we regard
that as a good method worthy of our blessing.
I am not proposing to change the requirements, only to add an example
and change the wording. The existing text already says that the
generator must guarantee uniqueness of the left hand side within the
scope of the right hand side domain, and already says that the right
hand side domain does not have to belong to the host itself. Using
a vendor's domain would fit all these requirements, but I have seen
discussions in various places over the years that suggests that vendors
are not aware that they are allowed to do this.
--apb (Alan Barrett)