Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for LDAP

From: [email-masked] (Richard V Huber) (by way of "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:23:32 -0700

[comments from [email-masked] for LDAPbis discussion, --kdz]

Should the use of "e-" be restricted only to experimental attribute
result codes and authentication mechanisms?  If someone wants to
register "e-commerce-auth" as an authentication mechanism in a
Standards Action, it is allowed?

The draft is clear that e- is reserved solely for experimental use for
OID names and attribute options, but it not is clear for result codes
or authentication methods (it is clear that experimental codes and
methods MUST start with e-, but not whether non-experimental names MAY
start with e-).

I think we should have consistency.  Either e- may only be used for
experimental OID names, attribute options, result codes, and
authentication methods or all experimental names, etc. MUST start with
e- but other names MAY also start with e-.

Rick Huber

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:26:14 -0700

>Standards Action, it is allowed?

Does x-wife refer to my wife or my x?   :-)

Of course, e- values doesn't have the same problem as with x- values.
x- values must never be registered so as that no registered value
will conflict with a private extension.  Of course, private extensions
might conflict with each other, but that's a different matter.

It was my intent to reserve e- to make it clear for all as to
which guidelines/procedures apply.

I note that e-commerce-auth could just as easily be named
eCommerceAuth or eCommerce-Auth.

Kurt

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard V Huber)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:35:07 -0400

I can live with that solution.  I just think we need to treat e-
consistently across all types of names (OID names, attribute options,
result codes, and authentication mechanisms).  Your email (as opposed
to e-mail) indicates that you want to have a consistent rule that e- is
used if and only if the name is experimental.  The document needs to be
tweaked to say that; right now it says if, but not only if for two
types of names.

The only argument I can see in favor of of allowing ANY name to start
with e- is that if an experiment succeeds and is documented in a
standard, you could leave the name alone.  But since you would have to
change the associated numeric value in some cases, this would be a
limited advantage.

Rick Huber

: To: [email-masked] (Richard V Huber)
: From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
: Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for LDAP
: Cc: [email-masked]
: 
: At 08:51 AM 4/18/01, Richard V Huber wrote:
: >Should the use of "e-" be restricted only to experimental attribute
: >result codes and authentication mechanisms?  If someone wants to
: >register "e-commerce-auth" as an authentication mechanism in a
: >Standards Action, it is allowed?
: 
: Does x-wife refer to my wife or my x?   :-)
: 
: Of course, e- values doesn't have the same problem as with x- values.
: x- values must never be registered so as that no registered value
: will conflict with a private extension.  Of course, private extensions
: might conflict with each other, but that's a different matter.
: 
: It was my intent to reserve e- to make it clear for all as to
: which guidelines/procedures apply.
: 
: I note that e-commerce-auth could just as easily be named
: eCommerceAuth or eCommerce-Auth.
: 
: Kurt