RE: Compendium of "red flags"

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> Here's an example that I caught early enough before it
> had a chance to cause real problems:
>
>   Naming can be problematic when a new class of names has global
>   or world-wide scope.  Creation of new classes of globally
>   unique protocol-independent names is strongly discouraged;
>   it is usually better to focus on the naming needs of the
>   protocol at hand, ideally via an existing class of names.
>   Global uniqueness of names is difficult and subtle to specify
>   correctly, and expecting a new class of such names to be
>   globally resolvable is usually unrealistic.

This is a good example of something to go into the document, because we
nearly had the same problem with RFC 2486 -- luckily we came to our senses first :)