Speaking strictly for myself on this topic. On 17/12/2010, at 10:28 AM, George Michaelson wrote: > > I hesitate to block anything here, but I observe that preserving 8.3 filename > semantics is hugely anachronistic and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I find this contradictory. On the one hand the working group has adopted a repository structure where we describe directories and files, not URIs. Further we speak of manifests with registering file names and so forth. Section 2.2 in draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-06 specifies .cer, mft, and .crl. thus holding the ".3" part of the name. Do you now wish to make that arbitrary? > We worked very hard to get rid of this insanity in UNIX filesystems/services > space, and you can compile any named file you like from C to object to > running binary in any legal nameform that the filesystem will accept. > > Its not proscriptive. /etc/magic is the registry, such as it is. > > If there is a need for a registry, so be it. But can we acknowledge that this > is a retrograde decision? > > .cgi is not in a registry > .html is not in a registry > > the MIME encodings are in a registry. an OID might be analogous. Cannot the > CMS carry an OID, and is an OID not an extensible prefix for creation of > identity? > I would put forth, regardless of the file name extension length that the extension have special meaning within the SIDR work and hint nicely as to what the file contents might be. I see no reason not to have a stable registry. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
