[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue with RFC4880 IANA Registrations
Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Let me take a step back. I think that may bring clarity.
> Notations are a name-value pair in a signature, with arbitrary binary
> data allowed as the name and value. (I would use the word "key" as
> that's more traditional in data structures, but that would be
> confusing.) If you allow arbitrary values for names, there's the
> possibility of collisions in names. Hence a registry is desirable.
> This registry is presently null.
> We also allowed for an unmanaged space of the form foo@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> for the owners of any example.com domain, and if they step on their
> own feet that's their problem.
> There is also metadata. The only metadata we have is the single flag.
> Beyond that flag, no one has thought of any other needed metadata,
> and even that one flag is something we seem to have consensus on, and
> that consensus is that it is more charming than useful. Thus, it
> seems we need a registry for those flags because if we don't, then a
> week from now someone will come up with a brilliant idea that needs
> one. Murphy's Law is like that.
> So there are two possible registries: one for the managed space of
> names, and one for extra metadata flags. Does this clear it up?
Based on this (and David Shaw's) response, it sounds like there
is a bug in the document, because we do NOT actually create that
registry of "extra metadata flags" in the IANA considerations section.
I've CC'd Sam on this and I'll talk to IANA to see what we need
to do to correct this oversight. I hope we don't need a new document
to correct it, but as the RFC has already been published I don't
know what we can do. Can you actually create a registry in an
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
Computer and Internet Security Consultant