Re: [security-services] PE78: Reassignment of persistent identifiers

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
>> IMO, option 1 is not a viable option.  Either a persistent identifier
>> MAY be reassigned or a persistent identifier MUST NOT be reassigned.
>> There is no middle ground.
>
> Not at the time of deployment, but a SHOULD NOT makes it much easier to
> argue for a MUST NOT within specific deployments because you can point at it
> as a justification. For example, federations could do so.
>
> Or of course we could even define a new format now.

Well, MUST NOT is a stretch for an erratum (as pointed out by Eve on
the call), and SHOULD NOT is not all that useful IMO, so perhaps a new
format is needed, yes.

Tom