Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt

"Markus Lanthaler" <> Thu, 18 April 2013 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6F121F9356 for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kVbk+tb8f5Of for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328DF21F9377 for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LyxXq-1UXRzt1iwy-0149sd for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:34:57 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2013 18:34:57 -0000
Received: from (EHLO Vostro3500) [] by (mp033) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2013 20:34:57 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18V8nYfpKMV2hw2MC6B/0bZzBgJ7GlF2nyBnW5pzd btdqDiY6tlQXW8
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <>
To: <>, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:34:48 +0200
Message-ID: <015a01ce3c63$6a1e69d0$3e5b3d70$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac475lcXRf6KcglcScywM1PnhbQkgQAeRtXA
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: 'Barry Leiba' <>, 'IETF Apps Discuss' <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:35:13 -0000

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:39 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On the average, something like this is best done when motivated by some
> specific needs for its capabilities, rather than as an abstract
> exercise.
> So my own question is:  what profiles are needed immediately?

That's a good point. The JSON-LD specification [1], which is now in Last
Call at W3C, e.g., defines three profile URIs. Since it is being defined at
W3C, it also uses URIs in W3C's URI space. AFAIK, nothing comparable
(URI-space-wise) exists for RFCs. The profile link relation was approved
just recently and media type definitions are already beginning to include
profile parameters following its semantics [1], [2], [3], [4] (or are being
re-registered to do so).

I think the potential gain of reserving some URN space for this to enable
standards to mint unambiguous and, more importantly, stable identifiers far
outweighs the potential harm it might do. In fact, I can't see any potential
"harm" apart from "wasting" one URN sub-namespace if it doesn't get adopted.

This may not answer your question directly. We are a bit in a
chicken-and-egg situation here. Obviously profiles can't make use of such an
URN before the sub-namespace is established. Nevertheless, I think this I-D
represents an important piece to ensure that profiles can be used to build
interoperable and evolvable solutions. It is similar to media types: nothing
"breaks" if you use proprietary ones but you will lose a lot of advantages
by doing so. In these instances, centralization is a feature.

I hope this clarifies the motivation behind this effort. If not, please let
me know and I'll try my best to respond to your concerns.



Markus Lanthaler