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

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

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:21:36 -0700
Message-ID: <43610CA0.608@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

As discussed in todays conference call, this text will be moved to an 
appendix.


Best,
Elias


bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote:

>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.
>
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 17:21:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT