On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:45:04AM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >Also, I find the reverse DNS naming scheme dissatisfying ... it makes > >everything quite a bit longer than it really needs to be to provide > >the separation of the namespace that is desired. It also ignores the > >bit that not everyone who wants to participate will have a DNS domain > >name, or that the domainname will not change over time. (E.g. due to > >mergers, buyouts, insolvency, or rebranding.) > True enough, but it is better than Stock Symbols (How much would a > domain name cost me? How much would a stock symbol cost me?) More > importantly, its the fairly widely accepted convention these days. > > My only point is that Solaris/OpenSolaris/Sun/whatever is special. > Somebody would have to be from another planet to step on SUNW. > > A discussion as to what the suggested form for others should be is a > separate discussion - not this case.
IF RFC3530 had provided a light-weight registration procedure for the named attribute namespace, and IF we could treat that as authoritative for Solaris' extended attributes namespace, THEN there would be NO NEED for any prefix, though we might pick a very generic prefix, like "system." to help avoid conflicts with apps that use unregistered named attributes. BUT, NEITHER does RFC3530 provide such a light-weight registration procedure, NOR is it obvious that we could use its named attribute registry as authoritative for Solaris' extended attrs namespace: though fsattr(5) is quite unclear on that point, as it does reference RFC3530 and says that NFSv4 named attrs and Solaris extended attrs are "equivalent," but then misrepresents what RFC3530 says about this namespace. (RFC3530 allows one to use any named attr name one wants but encourages folks to follow a very heavy-weight procedure for registering them! Guess how many app developers will bother to register their named attr names? What is the point of such a registry if noone will ever use it?) I think we do need an authoritative registry for this namespace, and its registration procedures ought to be exceedingly light-weight, else noone will register their named attr names. IANA is as good a registrar as any. I think advice to the IETF NFSv4 WG to loosen the registration procedures is in order. Advice to the i-team to register these attributes, even though the current process is painful, seems in order as well. *sigh* Nico --
