registry is underspecified

w3c-ccg / multihash

An IETF Internet Draft for the Multihash data format

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/multihash/index.xml

Other

10 stars 8 forks source link

registry is underspecified #5

Open nichtich opened 5 years ago

nichtich commented 5 years ago

See RFC 8126 quick overview and its details. In particular:

field "Codec" should better be named "algorithm" or "hash function type", or the name "codec" should also be used elsewhere in the document. It should be stated that its values consist of lowercase letters a-z, 0-9, and - only
field "Identifier (hex)" should be named "value" and make clear that its value is given as hexadecimal value. Is the prefix 0x relevant? uppercase or lowercase?
meaning of field "Status" is not defined

nichtich commented 5 years ago

I started on this with https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/multihash/pull/6

msporny commented 5 years ago

Do you think this issue is addressed yet, or are you planning more PRs?

nichtich commented 5 years ago

From the items above "status" is unclear. Just drop this column because it depends on usage context anyway?

Beside that RFC 8126 requires to state a "registration policy" (how are new values going to be added). A look at existing RFCs may help.

msporny commented 5 years ago

From the items above "status" is unclear. Just drop this column because it depends on usage context anyway?

Status is meant to convey whether it is still safe to use the value or if usage could be a concern (for example, no one should be using md4 these days).

Beside that RFC 8126 requires to state a "registration policy" (how are new values going to be added).

You are correct, we should lift a section with appropriate language from another RFC. So, this issue should remain open until we have a PR that does that and therefore closes this issue.