On 14.03.2016 08:06:25, Taylor, Marlon wrote:
>
> I was going to type up my strategy for versioning but as I reviewed
> the top 2 links(see below), I saw Sean summarized it in Option 3
> (honestly I was going to say the same thing, basically). The only
> difference in my approach is the use of a HASH rather than a GUID
> for the ID. So format: [ObjectType-HASH]
>
Hi, Marlon -
As a TC, we've already discussed the question of deterministic,
hash-based object ids at great length. I agree with you that this
would be extremely useful for a great many use cases. Unfortunately,
after lengthy discussion, we reached consensus as a TC that for a
variety of technical reasons, implementing deterministic object
identifiers is not practical.
Please forgive the terseness of my response; I simply lack the
bandwidth at present to go back through all the historical discussion
and summarize it here. Suffice to say that had we been able to
overcome the technical challenges identified at the time, I would be
the #1 cheerleader for deterministic, hash-based identifiers.
--
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
--
"Every networking problem always takes longer to solve than it seems
like it should." --RFC 1925
