Subject: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:33:58 -0700

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-10-25 09:33 -------
The postfix notation of the "opaquelocktoken" scheme allows more freedom in
generating URIs than "urn:uuid". For instance, a server that internally uses a
simple string-typed (or numeric) lock identifiers can generate "opaquelocktoken"
URIs by simply appending the internal identifier to a single, fixed UUID. In
absence of that feature, it would need an additional lookup table to map
internals IDs to UUIDs.

So, no, "urn:uuid" can't be considered to "obsolete" the "opaquelocktoken" URI
scheme.

On the other hand, what do we gain from removing the scheme definition?
Simplifying (delegating most of the definitin to the URN:UUID spec) is a good
idea, but removing doesn't seem to be attractive to me.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:21:36 -0700

As discussed in todays conference call, this text will be moved to an 
appendix.

Best,
Elias