On 04/12/2010, at 8:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Andrew suggests that the new naming schemes should be added to the
>>> repos-struct draft.
>>>
>>> Tim's message implies that the naming scheme would be added to the
>>> roa-format draft (by extension, to whatever draft creates a new
>>> repository structure element, like the ghostbusters draft).
>>>
>>> I'd like wg consideration as to which would be best, both now and
>>> going forward.
>>
>> I support adding .roa; I didn't realize it was not there already.
>>
>> I think we can wait for GB, because it is a new doc, not yet final
>> (it was just adopted by the WG). We will need to have each new RPKI
>> signed object specify it's file extension for the future, so why now
>> start with the GB doc, when it is approved.
>
> lemme repeat. keeping track of a changing list of identifiers is (part
> of) the iana function and is why we have iana consideration sections in
> documents.
>
> probably repo structure should create the registry with certs and
> manifests and crls, and roa, ghostbusters, ... should add to it.
>
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. 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?
-G
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
