- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:11:36 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Jason Crawford'" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:50 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Jason Crawford' > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: comments on RFC2518bis-02, sec 6.3 > > > Yes. A non-registered URI scheme doesn't have *any* > > guaranteed uniqueness, so it doesn't serve it's stated purpose... > > > > That's not true. If I create a URI scheme where the scheme name is > "http://www.xythos.com/storageServer/locktoken/", without registering this > with the IETF, it can still meet the uniqueness guarantee. You can't create a URI scheme with that kind of scheme name. The scheme part of a URI is the string before the first colon, so the URI scheme for that URI is just "http" (which indeed *is* a registered URI scheme). And yes, you can use these kinds of URIs for lock tokens. > For that matter, a sufficiently long randomly generated set of characters, > as long as it meets the URI formatting requirements, > statistically meets the > uniqueness guarantee. How do you "statistically" meet a requirement? Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 14:11:50 UTC