I think I prefer Moonshot- and TR- over ABFAB-* and ABFAB-TR-* since these are our implementation specific at the moment. As you say, ABFAB- would make sense if we put them in them in the specs.
Rhys.
--
Dr Rhys Smith
Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist
Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network
email: [log in to unmask] / [log in to unmask]
GPG: 0x4638C985
Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a
not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238
On 24 Jul 2014, at 13:49, Sam Hartman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Paetow <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> Stefan> Good question... Was thinking of several, but they don't
> Stefan> really match the expectation... *sigh* Does ABFAB work?
>
> If JANET decides abfab works we can go with that.
> I prefer to keep abfab for things specified in the RFCs and abfab-tr- or
> abfab-trust-router- or similar for things that the trust router RFCs
> would specify if they existed.
> I think moonshot- is fine here, but am happy to submit another patch.
|