Re: Persistent or opportunistic IDs

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> - do we agree that going the pragmatic route first and adding 
> persistent identifiers later is indeed possible?

If we are assuming that the persistent identifiers provide a superset
of the functionality/semantics prociuded by the short-lived identifiers,
then taking the step should be easy; the question is what benefit
one would derive, if any, (and at what cost) from taking the step to
the persistent identifiers.

As one example, I think that multihoming with short-lived identifiers
implies a change to the applications that do referrals and/or callbacks
(depending on the actual multi6 approach they might need to change to
pass FQDNs, locator lists, or something else where they today
might pass a single IP address). Thus they need some change.

Will moving from short-lived identifiers to persistent identifiers
imply another change to that class of applications?
[This is just an example; I don't expect anybody to answer this particular
question at this point in time.]

Thus I do think we'd need to understand more details about such a transition
(or probably, coexistence) between different classes of identifiers
before being able to guage the cost/benefit tradeoffs.

  Erik