Subject: [psg.com #441] IESG - Architecture - atsign

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:41:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Folks,

Let's revist the discussion of the "@".  The IESG notes were relevent to
the "IANA Considerations" Section in [ARCH].  However, Ticket 440 (my note
from yesterday) is a request from an IANA reviewer to plainly state what
parts of [ARCH] are to be used to form the initial IANA Registry.  I've
taken care of that by adding a note that the information in the "IANA
Considerations" section of [ARCH] is there only for reference and that the
_real_ IANA information is in [NUMBERS].  However, nothing about the use
of "@" is actually mentioned in [NUMBERS].  I'll get that in there but I
need some clarification.

The discussion in [ARCH] is about algorithm names.  In [NUMBERS] many of
the sections prevent the use of the "@" and "," symbols with no further
explanation.  Are the locally defined extensions applicable to:
 - Service Names
   - Authentication Methods
   - Connection Protocol Channel Names
   - Connection Protocol Global Request Names
   - Connection Protocol Channel Request Names
 - Key Exchange Method Names
 - Assigned Algorithm Names
   - Encryption Algorithm Names
   - MAC Algorithm Names
   - Public Key Algorithm Names
   - Compression Algorithm Names

If _ALL_ of these Names are locally extensible, then I can state quickly
state that.  Essentially, I'll add a section in [NUMBERS] that will state
that the IANA will not accept anything with "@", but that the use of "@"
in a method or name will indicate that it is outside the control of IANA.
(I'll incorporate the other notes about self-control of this namespace
from the prior discussion as well.)

If _NOT_ALL_ of these are locally extensible, then I need to know which
ones are/aren't and I'll edit appropriately.

Thanks,
Chris

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:21:44 -0600

I believe all of these are locally extensible.

Thanks,

- Joseph

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:30:45 -0400 (EDT)

> Are the locally defined extensions applicable to:
>  - Service Names
>    - Authentication Methods

> If _ALL_ of these Names are locally extensible,

I think they are, and if they're not, whatever necessary should be
changed so that they are.

Certainly when writing my code I've been assuming they are, and in some
cases it's difficult to see any good stubstitute if they're not.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

---

From: Simon Tatham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:23:30 +0100

Chris Lonvick  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> state that.

I believe that is (or should be) correct. The only purpose in using
string identifiers _at all_, with their extra space cost, is so that
they can be conveniently extensible in a way that pure 32-bit
integers are not. Therefore, anywhere the protocol defines a string
identifier, it should be extensible using the @ mechanism.

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
Simon Tatham         "Every person has a thinking part that wonders what
<[email-masked]>    the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking about."

---

From: [email-masked] (Niels Möller)
Date: 11 Jul 2004 21:14:18 +0200

> If _ALL_ of these Names are locally extensible, then I can state quickly

My understanding of the specs have always been that *all* the names
are locally extendable.

/Niels