RE: UDDI's UUIDs issue

FYI: 

If you plan on using UUIDs in a URI form then you should use the
developing ISO/ITU standard for how to do it [1]. Its still in process
due to some issues with the 'variant' field and Microsoft's usage of it
but that's not a huge issue.

IMNSHO, you should only request a new 'uddi:' URI scheme if there's no
other scheme that can handle what you want. The IESG is taking a much
harder look at URI registration requests these days and they will
explicitly ask you why you aren't using the one recognized by ISO/ITU...

-MM

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-00.txt

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 18:33, Ugo Corda wrote:
> >Could you elaborate on why the scheme uddi will be registered?  This
> seems a little bit strange to me. 
>  
> The reason is to make it an official URI scheme maintained by IANA.
> Why do you think it is strange?
>  
> >And why would they use the uuid: scheme for uuids rather than
> creating a new uddi?  
>  
> I am not sure I follow. The scheme used is still the uddi one. For
> example, a key that used to be represented as UUID
> "4CD7E4BC-648B-426D-9936-443EAAC8AE23" in version 2, can now be
> represented in version 3 as
> "uddi:4CD7E4BC-648B-426D-9936-443EAAC8AE23". (The UUID-based format is
> just one of the possible formats - see [1] and [2]). The rationale for
> this wrapped UUID representation is, I believe, easy migration from
> version 2 keys (see [3]).



-- 
Michael Mealling <[email protected]>
VeriSign Labs