RE: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names

[Peter C Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz>]

I agree with the list (though i think more thinking around this may be
usefull...) I'll see if i can drum up the reserved list for dotBiz
launch, and post the relavant names.  Also agree with Loren, in that
this should only be neccesary at the "root" (eg global names)

---peterd

On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 15:34, Loren West wrote:
> My resistance may come down to a matter of definition.
> 
> I've always considered e-names and e-numbers as fancy
> words for non-persistent and persistent XRIs (respectively)
> that can be used anywhere in the XDI web.
> 
> One important place they're used is in the = and @
> namespaces, and I've seen those e-names / e-numbers
> referred to as "global e-names / e-numbers".
> 
> If, however, I've gotten my definition of e-name/e-number
> wrong, and they really mean "the things registered under
> the = and @ namespaces", then the usage of the term
> "global" is redundant.
> 
> If e-names really are defined the way I thought, then
> I have a problem with reserved words in the e-name
> specification.  They should be in the "global e-name"
> specification.
> 
> I understand the reason behind restricting single and double 
> letter global e-names, but aside from "Example", I don't
> see the reason to restrict any of those proposed e-names in 
> the global e-name specification.
> 
> =Loren
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] 
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:52 AM
> To: Loren West
> Cc: 'XDI TC'
> Subject: Re: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names
> 
> 
> My thinking about why some names ought to be reserved regards 
> documentation, similar to RFC2606 that reserves e.g. example.com.  Being 
> able to write documentation that includes examples like 
> '@community/member' and '=user' without these names referring to actual 
> entities is, IMO, valuable.
> 
> I agree that if any names are reserved at all, it would be most 
> important that they are reserved at the root, e.g., the = and @ name spaces.
> 
> Note that I also pose the question of disallowing one and two-character 
> e-names, and e-names with any xri-reserved character in them (though the 
> ABNF allows (e.g) this subset:  ;!*@&=+$,
> 
> Fen
> 
> 
> Loren West wrote:
> > I'm not sure why we need to reserve any of these names.
> > If so, maybe only at the root.  Remember, XDI resources
> > describe people (identities) as well as data within
> > those identities (business cards, etc).
> > 
> > Although it doesn't make much sense to register people
> > with those restricted words, I could imagine a few 
> > thousand other words that don't make much sense, but
> > I wouldn't know why we would want to disallow them.
> > 
> > Can you describe to me why you want to restrict e-names,
> > and if so, in what namespace (=/$/@ - or some other namespace)?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > =Loren
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:55 PM
> > To: XDI TC
> > Subject: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names
> > 
> > 
> > At the TC meeting in New Orleans, I mentioned that we may want to 
> > disallow some words as e-names in the same way the DNS Registries 
> > disallow single letter names and (e.g.) example.com
> > 
> > I have taken a stab at an initial set of reserved words here:
> >
> http://xrixdi.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/EnamesAndEnumbers#head-bb873c830605d42e
> > 40754efd118bfc9bcdb75c17
> > 
> > Please read and comment.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Fen
> > 
> > PS: I'm not a member of the XRI list - perhaps this note should be 
> > forwarded there, too?
> >