Closed llemeurfr closed 3 years ago
My very personal proposal is:
Note that MDN on HTTP Headers specifies that we dont need to add an "X-" prefix anymore. We should still register "TDM-Signal" and "TDM-Policy" to IANA (the would appear in https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers).
ps: I hesitated with "tdm-flag" but flag is usually a boolean.
for tdm-a, an option could be "tdm-declaration" since it is a declaration of right's reservation.
Another option for the tdm-a could be "tdm-reservation".
I agree with (i) tdm-declaration because it is self-explanatory and (ii) tdm-policy for tdm-b
I'm happy with tdm-signal and tdm-policy.
Hi All, here's my proposals:
TDM_RightsReservation_Type
TDM_RightsReservation_Policy
The idea is to use the term RightsReservation for consistency with the art.4 terminology, The _Type suffix is meant to introduce a list of options (0-1-2), where 0 stands for: "no TDM rights reservation" 1 for " TDM rights are reserved" 2 for "TDM rights are reserved and license information are available" ( i think it is preferable to say "and" instead of "but", and say that information about licenses are available, as ORDL policy are not licenses but information on license)
@giuliamarangoni, a caveat with your proposal is that the more characters there are, the more chances that a developer will mistype one character. And a bad character means no detection by TDM Agents. Plus the underscore is a character people tend to mistype.
I see. Maybe we could cut "rights" to shorten it? on the underscore: no strong preference on this, also other separators are ok!
We've used the acronym tdmrep
from the start of this project. @giuliamarangoni would it be ok instead of tdm-rights
?
During the community call, the following terms have been chosen:
tdm-reservation tdm-policy
It is now time for a "bike-shedding round": we have worked so far with two properties:
What would be your preferred names and values for these properties?