RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM
>
I think this is simple and supports flexibility, I don't think we need to
impose some type of registry.

<<<<<<<<<<<

Dave,  you really are looking for things to argue about, huh?!!!?

Did we not go all around this several weeks ago?

I'm hearing overtones of that - and the outcome was that
people think of this 'registry' as some behemoth - where in
reality it could be as simple as a XML file in a sub-directory
off a web server somewhere.  So let's not revisit on that!

The current WebDav DASL work I've been doing certainly
allows for that minimalist approach, and RegRep as a whole
is aware of the issues here.

Notice what Scott was advocating - use the URI and no TYPE
as the default - means you don;t even need the registry - but
if you deviate from the path - then you need to tell your
TP's and then it would not be unreasonable to insist this is
done electronically via the registry.

Thanks, DW.