Subject: RE: [lemonade] Access Identifiers for URLAUTH

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:52:07 -0400

[for Randy]
OOPS!  Forgot about user ID in token.

How about "role identifier prefix"
:)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:30 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lemonade] Access Identifiers for URLAUTH

[for Randy]
I think it would be more clear to use the term "role identifier" rather
than "access identifier" or "access identifier prefix".

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:48:41 -0700

I don't understand this message.

Are you asking me to change some text in the URLAUTH document?  If so, why 
is it "for Randy"?

I don't think that "role identifier" is appropriate for the name of the 
access ABNF rule in URLAUTH (currently called the "Authorized Access 
Identifier").  That field provides access control above and beyond the 
"pawn ticket" model, and only coincidentally corresponds to role 
identifier.

Although we can probably come up with a better name that "access 
identifier", I believe that "role identifier" is a step in the wrong 
direction.

> than "access identifier" or "access identifier prefix".

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:55:42 -0700

At 12:48 PM -0700 9/29/05, Mark Crispin wrote:

> identifier", I believe that "role identifier" is a step in the 
> wrong direction.

I was just offering a suggestion to resolve the IESG comment -- 
please offer some alternatives.  I agree we can come up with a better 
one.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Beware the advice of successful people; they do not seek company.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:10:16 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Randall Gellens wrote:
> I was just offering a suggestion to resolve the IESG comment -- please offer 
> some alternatives.  I agree we can come up with a better one.

I thought that, in the context it was raised, that "access identifier 
prefix" was fine to refer to the "user+" part of the "user+joe" access 
identifier.  Ditto for the "submit+" part of the "submit+joe" access 
identifier.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.