Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review

[Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Ted Hardie wrote:

>>         my intention above was that if I specify how to compare URIs
>> then it also specifies how to compare values, too. I understand that's
>> probably not the best way to do it. On the other hand, we don't know how
>> PKCS#11 URI might be used so it may be worth to specify that.
>
>I think the safest thing to do is to specify a conservative comparison at the
>URI registration level (like bit-for-bit equality) but note that
>applications consuming
>them will likely use different comparison algorithms once the values have
>been pulled from the URI for use.
>
>Just a personal opinion, though; I'm not sure that there is a single
>right answer here.

	hi Ted, I think that in this case the simple string comparison 
would probably not work great since multiple attributes will be commonly 
used in URI instances and different ordering would result in many false 
negatives.

	I've just replied to Larry's email and I included a suggested 
new section which provides a set of quite strict rules as an alternative 
to the simple comparison. I understand that applications may always use 
different algorithms so I'm convinced now that giving easy to follow 
rules may decrease the number of ad-hoc algorithms that would be 
otherwise used.

	thanks a lot for the feedback, Jan

>regards,
>
>Ted
>
>>         I'm not sure what would be the best here. I could just take the
>> explanation of how library-version value should be read and move it out
>> of the Example section, or I could put together a small section on URI
>> comparison, explicitly stating how to do that (as in RFC 5870 on geo
>> URI, for example).
>>
>>         would you suggest me to write a section on comparision of URIs
>> when we don't expect people to do it?
>>
>>         regards, Jan.
>>
>> --
>> Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>
>

-- 
Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>