Comment 3 for bug 791370

What is being asked for is a relation identifier, specifically. We have two choices: provide a relation identifier that covers the need of re-added relations, or stating that this kind of logic should not be implemented in any way and provide some rationale about why.

One issue I see with the relation identifiers that considers the participating peers is that this list can change, so it will be strange to have an identifier like that while the members can mutate.

Either way, we need to put some further thinking into this issue.