Subject: [Extra] CLIENT ID - Next Steps - Feedback on CID naming convention

From: Michael Peddemors <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 12:09:32 -0700

While not having received consensus on CID as an IMAP verb, it was good
to hear the feedback on the naming convention, as their was concern that
it might be confused with other 'client id' nomenclature in other RFC's
and/or with the 'cid' as used in IMAP eg, the content id, and we are
fully willing to consider a different naming convention as a standard.

This thread is to receive input from the working group and community as
to a naming convention that is less contentious.

Note: Arguments for naming convention should be held ON the assumption,
       this will make it to being an IMAP VERB, which hasn't been decided
       yet, admittingly.

While it can be argued that IMAP verbs and IMAP tags are two completely
separate sets of identifiers, less confusion is always a good thing.

We had considered other names to better reflect the idea of a 'device
identifier' or a 'client identifier' before as well, but CID as an
abbrevation for 'CLIENT ID' seemed logical.

We had considered:

ACID - Accepted Client Identifier, Authentication Control ID
        (But ACID was ruled out, just becuase we thought it would not be
         taken seriously, however open to comments on that)
DID - Device Identifier (Possible Confusion as well)

Some other things that come to mind..

PDID - Personal Device Identifier
DCID - Device Class Identifier

PDID seems to reflect the conceptual idea of a 'personal device' which
can be linked to the person who is the owner of the resource that is
being accessed.. but it can also be argued that it may be confusing with
the ID verb .. I do like it in essence though.

Feedback welcome....

-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.

---

From: Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:44:37 +1000

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018, at 05:09, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> While not having received consensus on CID as an IMAP verb, it
> was good> to hear the feedback on the naming convention, as their was
> concern that> it might be confused with other 'client id' nomenclature in
> other RFC's> and/or with the 'cid' as used in IMAP eg, the content id, and we are
> fully willing to consider a different naming convention as a standard.> 
> This thread is to receive input from the working group and
> community as> to a naming convention that is less contentious.
> 
> Note: Arguments for naming convention should be held ON the
>       assumption,>       this will make it to being an IMAP VERB, which hasn't been
>       decided>       yet, admittingly.
> 
> While it can be argued that IMAP verbs and IMAP tags are two
> completely> separate sets of identifiers, less confusion is always a good thing.
> 
> We had considered other names to better reflect the idea of a 'device> identifier' or a 'client identifier' before as well, but CID as an
>         (But ACID was ruled out, just becuase we thought it would not
>         be>         taken seriously, however open to comments on that)
> PDID seems to reflect the conceptual idea of a 'personal device' which> can be linked to the person who is the owner of the resource that is
> being accessed.. but it can also be argued that it may be
> confusing with> the ID verb .. I do like it in essence though.
> 
> Feedback welcome....

There's no law which requires it to be 4 characters or shorter.  I vote
for "CLIENTID" - it's clear and non-clashing.
Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Peddemors <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:29:49 -0700

> for "CLIENTID" - it's clear and non-clashing.

Any other feedback?  Our developers are working on another round of 
releases, and would be interesting to get more feedback, while Bron's 
suggestion is clear, others might think it clashes with other concepts 
of CLIENTID.. An acronym might make for more distinct nomenclature..