Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track

[Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Terry Manderson wrote:

>
> On 18/07/11 9:39 PM, "Tim Bruijnzeels" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that not having this mapping is tedious and error prone for RPs.
>
> I can agree that a mapping system is useful. It may just be that living unix
> world for far too long has seen me move away from the mandatory dos-like
> suffixes to the voluntary use of extensions in a unix file system as a
> *hint* to the file contents and nothing more.
>
> And I'm happy to see it written as a hint. A validated mapping should come,
> in my opinion from something more robust which also transcends the
> technology used in the repository.
>


There was a brief discussion of the use of file names extensions when the 
repos-struct document came up for last call.  See the following messages:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02281.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02282.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02283.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02284.html

To summarize: George Michaelson spoke against extensions when we were 
considering a registry (and Terry mildly supports them), I asked George if 
he as author was suggesting the draft needed to change and he said no and 
added that rsync can filter objects only on the basis of the file name.

So we've been around this barn already.

The point about the rsync filtering abilities has not come up this time.

I ask for review and consideration of that exchange (and the registry 
discussion context).

--Sandy, speaking as wg chair