Subject: [precis] NameClass considered misleading

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:18:08 -0700

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?

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:03:12 +0000

Hi Peter,

> NameClass?!"). Thus I propose changing it to "SafeClass". Any objections?

I like SafeClass much better.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:52:16 -0700

On 3/18/13 7:03 PM, Alexey Melnikov 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?
> 

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...

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Joseph Yee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:23:18 -0400

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

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?

Joseph

> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRSBkvAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pxbkP/jab0kYgfJGvLRmsuzS0Acug
> OdsRZ+hi3lQRIhP7/glaQd+PMzUshBG1WiDvsrZYganIMIgRcw7WUOWSyfulv2tI
> NJmEmv7l8C2DGVKD95Mmn5P+9PpI3x59z7c8i+HYTGC+Lq58bloRI8IPwGrzugfd
> onBuXxn0tKceS+CIpicFJhZIf1NjBpJkRuMwPlj3S+1Oko8RzIunldh6dQNeCMIN
> /ya4SK7jf7qluc/q7gTYP70CEHM/ycsMb//bmjAIrEMAVVQOP4bWxooWT/NvknRk
> IPJh9zEN1WGF1CMfqY+mB0WKGVf8qUpOSI9HTWTRUbBPKU2MxxdAHOzwHplZ18a2
> bWcfP/kMgJqzM/01A15ui1Um2zGbgHHrHTgeaMtbcQG+ezpI0rJB4scRzWna1qNj
> 1LtgaXJED2ruA6vTh/WYlnKRX6QMNfX08VBA8qVlyWsm6HAVkFiFY8zu+nDKYTVj
> POEqxuGq8h+xjDjUmt3mZbWRnSk6hrTLrnwZJFpRyV+dj7I5jDeBXZu99h3PrdxR
> QWHNgROB3szRxCGPIPpqMn+U4xUzjSfM5dz2tm1dtGgPOvBXkaU3N3qkw+HiQp3P
> m8MHGwyLAYtqmLI0qiWXwRDSL4IE8sKBgqmYpSc7tsheYAGWJvkr0BINTxjNiir5
> ttwhZTfCATlUTK4JECsn
> =vL9P
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> precis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

---

From: Matthew Wild <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:33:40 +0000

> Just throwing names out from my brain...

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

---

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:22:01 +0000

> characters in most systems.

+1 to IdentifierClass.

The suggestion that first came to my mind was probably worse: BasicClass

- m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:31:52 -0700

On 3/19/13 7:22 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>> 
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 

Yeah, I thought of that one too. The idea behind SafeClass is that
it's intended to be safe, just as the FreeClass is intended to be
free. But IdentifierClass is OK with me.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:56:55 -0400

> free. But IdentifierClass is OK with me.

- Safe is an overloaded word. How can we claim to have something safe with the zillions unicode codepoints.
- I prefer IdentifierClass, but just too long.
- suggesting: IdClass.

Marc.

> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRSHbYAAoJEOoGpJErxa2psdEP/jUmPzHxxiMUlRi7L9Rqi39f
> oDUIgyOfSoNo5EPLcVr2j5IsGayXpOGBVG5UN53aCvrsNxJXXOzD3RfLgxEbtojI
> UgmD4v2B7mvXKj+v8y6J+2577FfoN+A7jyMHY/6DC+fCK2pOesXXX+fU51hulaH1
> MyJqYIpEvxm4vmTMcnCx/NphM2j3eTPAooRt0KceXiCSGY854wVwun4dUrwp805P
> JYyMeZHL7+55KVsYPuSNLy2VWuh/u2b2JWQLGz4f2pG+4CEJjFQCBHWPt6t7IlT2
> Qb1ULcfjQSnlgVakOb8EgAsuNE8r4WuRPmcL0xW83tGBz9wv9dekpjH5krRpnI+9
> HHYJrv5d2yBxKVkonDtpCxWB7lB94BA47c0sNdTe7qBeNEu+ugfVaNFGkUP52KjO
> l9m1IzEXjSYj9vZrfFETyujGOa3du3pHrwSvsIdiunBDL0QPgfkgI5LQ/kPe9GHn
> aTWGDFInN8NwKHVuZVU5kF5HJv1mAjAuT5eXm495twstiCoxWLKK/2RZ4LydH83V
> a2lw/3oI/ibIG/KeWWZs+oMPEHHVh7YQ7PNObZqzW5jYnVVwiVmlzREKyaNNBrYf
> MYN4dVq8wKXlOkaZQy5NCTvdCBEgeCNB6MoXqtCv7+8E3otiKEEStlp1cIsRJSDE
> UlpZyK/4xY/N2OR97BxW
> =a8cT

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:58:52 -0700

On 3/19/13 7:56 AM, Marc Blanchet 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 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>> - Safe is an overloaded word. How can we claim to have something 
>> safe with the zillions unicode codepoints. - I prefer 
>> IdentifierClass, but just too long. - suggesting: IdClass.

The length of the term 'IdentifierClass' doesn't bother me, and it's
very clear. Plus, "id class" feels a bit Freudian to me. ;-)

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:34:49 -0400

> very clear. Plus, "id class" feels a bit Freudian to me. ;-)

+1, primarily on the grounds of clarity.

--David