On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: Hi Sam,
I can not recall having discussed this explicitly in a meeting, but that does't mean it didn't happen, it may be that I am just getting old ;-) Is there a compelling reason NOT to add an escaping mechanism apart from simplicity? It does not seem to add that much complexity…. Klaas > > Hi. One of the comments from the secdir review is that we have no way > to escape a slash or @ inside an ABFAB name. For reference, Kerberos > does have such a mechanism. > > I think we at least discussed this in a meeting. > > It's much easier to add an escaping mechanism now if we're going to need > it. > > I can't think of a reason you'd need such an escaping mechanism in > practice except: > > 1) To represent Kerberos enterprise names in ABFAB. I cannot think of > why you'd need to do that. > > 2) To represent pathalogical hostnames or Kerberos names in ABFAB. I > cannot think of why you'd need to do that. > > I think that when this was discussed in a meeting people expressed a > preference for simplicity over escaping. Personally I'm a bit nervous > that we may regret this decision no matter which way we decide. > > --Sam > _______________________________________________ > abfab mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
