Vouchers as issues by the MASA and passed on the to the pledge by the Registrar (JRC) are immutable, and the term "voucher" is perfectly fine.
Writing code and documenting test cases, I find that I am sometimes confused
by the different (signed) thing that the pledge sends to the JRC, and the thing
the
JRC sends to the MASA. They are both voucher requests, and they are
syntactically similar, but they are semantically different.
I mean I gotta given them different test names and store inputs and outputs
in semantically meaningful file names...
I propose to include an adjective in front of voucher request for the two
different situations. This would be for deeply technical conversations among
those steeped in the art; Max has pointed out that voucher vs voucher-request
is already confusing for some so I don't want to make it worse.
In addition in the JRC->MASA arc are three kinds of voucher requests which
are semantically different:
a) ones without any prior-signed-voucher-request
b) ones with a prior-signed-voucher-request which is a pledge-signed
artifact
c) ones with a prior-signed-voucher-request which is a (previously-signed)
MASA
artifact
I don't know what to suggest. I have in mind: colours, flavours, baking terms.
This is indeed a bikeshed question, so I hope it will elicit a really long
thread :-)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
