- From: Al Gilman <asg@severn.wash.inmet.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:14:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com (Larry Masinter)
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-types@uninett.no
To follow up on what Larry Masinter said ... I've re-reviewed all of the relevant documentation (scanned all RFCs for the header "content-ID") and have come to the conclusion that in all circumstances, 'content-ID' is required to be globally unique. That is, 'cid:baz@host' is always unambiguous. 'mid:frob@host/cid:baz@host' == 'cid:baz@host'. In such circumstances, they wouldn't need to cite a relative URI at all. I absolutely agree that they don't _need_ to. I really think that they should _want_ to. The Content-ID value is World-unique. It is a sufficient key. That doesn't mean that the recipient doesn't _want_ to know that it happens to be located in the current message. The recipient _does_ want to know that. I quoted you on the matter of the CID being a sufficient key to Harald, just now, on the ietf-types list. <double-negative warning> I still think that we should not strictly limit our syntax to carrying _only_ the information that is absolutely necessary. I think that we can and should define a syntax which emphasizes the necessary information, but makes room for useful additional information. Compare this with my discussion with Harald about the advisability of annotation an MID URI for a FAQ with "Newsgroups:" and "[archive-]Location:" info. Al
Received on Monday, 27 November 1995 11:16:29 UTC