Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This brings up another issue about rule datasets: namespaces and > name collisions. How should rule entities be named, in order to > minimize conflict?
> We can try using clever abbreviations of the rule title, but > that seems almost guaranteed to run into a conflict quickly. Something > that scales a little better is to give each policy book a fixed prefix, > and let each such book use simple monotonically increasing numerical > ID's, appending the contraction of the title as a sop towards human > readability. The far, impractical end of the spectrum is to use > uuidgen, but that would make entity names hard to type and impossible to > read directly. I tend to thing the prefix + sequence number + human > readable contraction as the best route to go, but I am willing to > listen to superior options. I'm not sure the sequence number really gains much here. It should be fairly trivial to check the full Policy document for any duplications before using a new rule tag, so I would tend to just use prefix + contraction and checking to be sure none are duplicated. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
