John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My ambitious in raising these questions are _very_ limited
and, in particular, I don't see this as a back door to
solving the non-DNS, topology-independent, persistent
identifier problem. (It seems to me that needs to be solved
through the front door, or not at all.).
I'm with you here. So, we know we need something more universal, but in
the meantime we band-aid FTP to keep going. Because of its special
status and the fact that it is widespread, FTP might justify doing the
work for only one protocol. It is clear that to be worthy of the effort,
this should be deployed way before a persistent identifier solution is
rolled out though.
As long as I'm not the one doing the work I don't have a problem with it
:-D
However, I do have a concern: when later a generic identifier mechanism
is deployed, we will have two standards. Have you had any thoughts on
the possible collisions there?
Michel.