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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]> wrote:
>         no, I don't expect that. I have checked some recent RFCs
> defining URIs and it seems to me that those that do not expect to be
> compared do not deal with comparison at all (for example, "mailto" and
> "tn3270" RFCs).
>
>         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.

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]>