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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:11:29 -0800

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

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-11-15 17:11 -------
I believe we came to consensus in a phone call and thus I'm making changes in
-08, marking this 'fixed', and the WG can confirm whether the resulting draft
changes are acceptable.

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:21:57 +0100

> [email-masked] changed:

Lisa,

this is hard to argue with unless you state what you think the consensus 
was.

My recollection is that opaquelocktoken can not obsoleted, because

a) it's in use in existing implementations and

b) its semantics is a true superset of urn:uuid.

Thus it should be kept, but it's definition can be stripped to a 
minimum, referring normatively to syntax and generation instructions in 
the URN:UUID RFC.

Best regards, Julian