RE: [security-services] A Modest Proposal about Attribute Names

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

[most of example snipped]

> AttributeNamespace=<some URI indicating "X.500-style attribute type">
>   AttributeName=<the name or OID of the attribute type>

> So, I'm inclined to think that attr-name and attr-namespace 
> should stay separate.

I can see the reasoning here, because it's clearer to me what the
purpose of the attribute is. It seems like what the Namespace might be
most useful for is specifying a "taxonomy" for the Name, if that term
doesn't add more confusion. Maybe I'm just finally "getting it", in
which case I suggest using this as an example in the document.

X.500/LDAP might be one taxonomy, DCE/COM UUIDs might be another, and
URI- space might be a third (and the one Shib is likely to use).

I like this.

-- Scott