On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Cantor, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/19/11 11:07 AM, "Nico Williams" <[email protected]> wrote: >>On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Cantor, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I actually prefer urn:oid: because arguments over names are endless and >>> non-terminating. >> >>We have names because OIDs were too inconvenient... :) > > I know, and there's a high degree of overlap between the people who > complain about them and the people who bitch endlessly at whatever name > you pick. I care little for either set.
I am neutral on this. I'd be just as happy to throw out all the OIDs and replace them with strings in a new version of the API. But you're right about one thing: OIDs represent a psychological barrier to addition of new constants, which might then encourage people to use the entities that exist rather than invent new ones with semantics equal or similar to existing ones. >>> As a second choice, maybe urn:ietf:kitten:something? >> >>I don't think we want WG names in there. Something like >>urn:ietf:security:nattr:...? > > Given that it's explicitly meant as a GSS-API naming extension, maybe just > use gssapi in the name. Can such attributes be useful outside the GSS context? But, sure, urn:ietf:security:gss:nattr:... _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
