RE: [RRG] IEEE EUI-64 as an Identifier format

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Bill, 

|> Agreed.  The ability escape to a crypto-generated ID seems 
|like a sufficient
|> mitigation, IMHO.
|
|Disagree for reasons stated in my other post. A client-side ID which
|is either constant or predictable day over day has terrible privacy
|implications.


Ok, but if you've got an ID that is tied to public/private key pair, it
would seem reasonable that you could change IDs as rapidly as you change
keys.  If you feel the need to do so daily (or hourly), I don't see that
that creates any architectural difficulties.


|You're not supposed to be aggregating the identifier. You're not
|supposed to be using the identifier in a manner where aggregation
|would even be helpful. The Locater is supposed to aggregate with
|topologically nearby Locaters while the identifier doesn't. That's the
|whole point of the split.


If a particular proposal chooses to use a structured, administratively
assigned identifier then there will need to be hierarchy for managerial
purposes.  Of course, that doesn't apply to CGid's.

Tony


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg