On 11/26/13, 2:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Separate from the issues surrounding enforcing declared policy, > putting metadata into identifiers seems like a bad practice. > > Besides the issue of scalability — do we really want a SSID that > looks like “mnot_nomap_guestsallowed_privacyguaranteed_prettyplease” > — this proposal is squatting on ALL suffixes; someone who wants to > define the “_guestsallowed” suffix, for example, now can’t do so > because it’s in contention with _nomap. 32 octets is not a lot when you're trying to overload semantic meaning on top of identifer, you'll run out fast. > Never mind that it’s retroactively assigning semantics to potentially > existing identifiers. > > These issues seem very similar to those raised in the > draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn. It’s very tempting for us as > standards bodies to encroach upon user-visible identifier space, but > doing so brings a number of concrete technical problems, as well as a > higher concern; that these name spaces are explicitly defined to be > under user (or administrator) control, and taking that control away > retroactively shouldn’t be something we do. > > Cheers, > > > On 26 Nov 2013, at 11:04 pm, Eric Burger <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Tastes like the ‘evil’ bit, in reverse. >> >> On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> My smartphone can turn into a Wifi access point so I can easily >>> use its Internet connection from my netbook. Problem is that >>> nearby devices I do not control might report my whereabouts to >>> third parties that map network equipment to geographic locations. >>> A naming convention for net- works has been proposed to address >>> this, append "_nomap" to the network name and "good actors" will >>> ignore it. I thought it would be a good idea to document this >>> convention in a better place than a single vendor's blog post, so >>> two years ago today I published >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-nomap-00 >>> >>> I think this is a "better than nothing" mechanism and I am not >>> the most qualified person to document it, and there was pretty >>> much no interest in the document when I announced it. Still, >>> especially considering more and more organisations are collecting >>> such data, I think this needs good documentation. I am looking >>> for volunteers, suggestions, whatever helps getting that done >>> without a lot of effort on my part... >>> >>> Thanks! -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · >>> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: >>> +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · >>> PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ >> > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature