interesting thread on "unguessable" URIs

For those of you who like this kind of thing, there's a thread on the
appropriateness of "unguessable" URIs running on the cap-talk list.

Mark Stiegler making the case for "unguessable" URIs, with some real use cases:

http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2012-January/015205.html

Jonathan Shapiro, in followups, questions whether this is always a
good idea, raising the objection that the URI too easily finds its way
into exposed places, as well as questions about unpleasant interaction
with revocation. e.g.

http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2012-January/015218.html

Thread index: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2012-January/thread.html

Might help inform our unresolved discussion from back in 2009, see
ACTION-278 (closed), ISSUE-31 (pending review) Also touches on our UMP
review (ACTION-344).

Jonathan