[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)




At the moment, it seems that we're at an impasse partially caused by our documents' failure to explain what a "path-identity" is. I don't know if I understand it either....


At the moment, the specific format and use of path-identity is punted to USEPRO, where it seems to be still undefined.

If we explained it, would this be a reasonable text to insert in 3.1.6?
(I've modified the BNF too. Only modified stuff included here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 A path-identity identifies an agent. For the news system to work
 properly, the path-identity must be globally unique.
 Traditional usage has had two means of generating unique identifiers:
 DNS names and asserted identities. The first gets its uniqueness from
 the DNS; the second gets its uniqueness from tradition. New servers
 should use DNS names.

 In some cases, one wishes to embed something into a path-entity that
 is not a name. One common thing to embed is an IP address, serving
 as an identity when the name of the agent is not known.

  path-list       =  [FWS]
                     *( ( path-identity / path-keyword / path-address )
                     [FWS]
                     path-delimiter [FWS] )
                     tail-entry [FWS]

  path-identity   =  ( ALPHA / DIGIT )
                     *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" )

path-keyword = "POSTED" / "MISMATCH"


path-address = IPv4address / no-fold-literal ; see [RFC2373]


 NOTE: The path-address contains characters that some systems consider
    path-delimiters. This can cause problems; path-address should
    therefore only be used when absolutely necessary.
    See [USEPRO] for details on when to use them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that in recycling no-fold-literal, I've added [] around addresses... and that a naked IPv4 address is allowed separately, because people have said this is already present (too much for us to remove).

Does this make sense?

Harald