On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
+1 to IdentifierClass. The suggestion that first came to my mind was probably worse: BasicClass - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
