W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > November 2002

RE: UDDI's UUIDs issue

From: Michael Mealling <michael@verisignlabs.com>
Date: 24 Nov 2002 20:45:31 -0500
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-Id: <1038188731.21971.65.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>


If you plan on using UUIDs in a URI form then you should use the
developing ISO/ITU standard for how to do it [1]. Its still in process
due to some issues with the 'variant' field and Microsoft's usage of it
but that's not a huge issue.

IMNSHO, you should only request a new 'uddi:' URI scheme if there's no
other scheme that can handle what you want. The IESG is taking a much
harder look at URI registration requests these days and they will
explicitly ask you why you aren't using the one recognized by ISO/ITU...


[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-00.txt

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 18:33, Ugo Corda wrote:
> >Could you elaborate on why the scheme uddi will be registered?  This
> seems a little bit strange to me. 
> The reason is to make it an official URI scheme maintained by IANA.
> Why do you think it is strange?
> >And why would they use the uuid: scheme for uuids rather than
> creating a new uddi?  
> I am not sure I follow. The scheme used is still the uddi one. For
> example, a key that used to be represented as UUID
> "4CD7E4BC-648B-426D-9936-443EAAC8AE23" in version 2, can now be
> represented in version 3 as
> "uddi:4CD7E4BC-648B-426D-9936-443EAAC8AE23". (The UUID-based format is
> just one of the possible formats - see [1] and [2]). The rationale for
> this wrapped UUID representation is, I believe, easy migration from
> version 2 keys (see [3]).

Michael Mealling <michael@verisignlabs.com>
VeriSign Labs
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 08:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:01 UTC