Re: [Rats] IANA pre-RFC code points

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon, Ned,

On 16/02/2021, 16:56, "Simon Frost" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The original intent for the spec was to be human readable rather than
> machine readable, with the main audience being a developer of a
> relying party or verifier. I agree it would be useful to establish a
> convention for the values to prevent interoperability problems (eg.
> vendor-product-version), not sure how strict such a convention would
> need to be.
>
> Thanks Simon
>
>
> On 16/02/2021, 16:45, "Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Is it the intent of this spec to define a machine readable format
> > for stating the 12 ‘things’ the profile should specify?  What if any
> > convention addresses profile name collisions? If vendor-A uses
> > profile name is “A” and vendor-B also uses “A”, is that considered
> > either a security problem or an interoperability problem?
> > -Ned

ISTM that non-collision should be a hard requirement.  We have all the
pieces available - either using explicitly namespaced objects (URIs,
OIDs) or huge random pools (UUID/UEID-like) - we just need to pick what
we need.  The benefit of avoiding ambiguities about the semantics of the
very things that determine the DOI of Evidence is well worth the (small,
one-shot) cost we impose on the profile owner.

cheers, t

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.