Re: [Rats] IANA pre-RFC code points

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

On 16/02/2021, 17:43, "Laurence Lundblade" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> If we can agree that profiles are necessary and that a simple text
> string is good enough to name a profile, then we can put in in the
> pre-allocation.  We don't have to agree on the mechanism for defining
> profiles, just for naming them.

I think what is in -08 in terms of defining a profile is great.

I think we should just nail down the type and constraints around the
claim value.  The way it is now (i.e., plain, unstructured tstr) creates
an incentive to using short strings and therefore increasing the chance
of collisions, which is bad.

If we say:
~~~
  profile-claim = (
    profile => $profile-type,
  )

  $profile-type /= uri ; i.e., #6.32(tstr)
  $profile-type /= oid ; draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid
~~~

We'd allow both human readable https://fidoalliance.org/profile/a, as
well as compact, machine readable 1.3.6.1.4.1.etc in a way that prevents
clashes.

I don't think it's crazy to expect the profile owner to also control a
DNS name and/or a PEN.

Cheers!


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.