On 19 March 2013 12:23, Joseph Yee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 3/18/13 7:03 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> On 18/03/2013 17:18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> During the WG session last week, I got the sense that people find >>>> the term "NameClass" misleading ("why can't I represent my name >>>> using the NameClass?!"). Thus I propose changing it to >>>> "SafeClass". Any objections? >>> >>> I like SafeClass much better. >> >> It's the best I could come up with on the plane yesterday. :-) >> >> My only concern is that people might think "safe" is some kind of >> guarantee that nothing bad could ever happen if they use the SafeClass... >> > > Hi Peter, > > I have the same concern about SafeClass too. Can't think of a better > name, but don't see it as big concern. Probably just more text needed > to explain 'safe' under what condition. > > Just throwing names out from my brain... > > RestrictedClass? > IdentifierClass? > ResourceNamingClass?
I was also going to suggest IdentifierClass just as your message came through. Many people already understand an 'identifier' to consist of characters from a restricted set (as in 99% of programming languages, and various protocols). Usernames usually draw from a similar set of characters in most systems. Regards, Matthew _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
