W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

[Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it

From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:33:58 -0700
Message-Id: <200510251633.j9PGXwfs017220@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172





------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de  2005-10-25 09:33 -------
The postfix notation of the "opaquelocktoken" scheme allows more freedom in
generating URIs than "urn:uuid". For instance, a server that internally uses a
simple string-typed (or numeric) lock identifiers can generate "opaquelocktoken"
URIs by simply appending the internal identifier to a single, fixed UUID. In
absence of that feature, it would need an additional lookup table to map
internals IDs to UUIDs.

So, no, "urn:uuid" can't be considered to "obsolete" the "opaquelocktoken" URI
scheme.

On the other hand, what do we gain from removing the scheme definition?
Simplifying (delegating most of the definitin to the URN:UUID spec) is a good
idea, but removing doesn't seem to be attractive to me.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 16:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:10 GMT