Re: [Cellar] namespace considerations for ebml's definition of EBML Schema

Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org> Fri, 17 July 2020 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <slhomme@matroska.org>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D880B3A09DF for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=matroska-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3PrsmOMKWFx for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275973A09A0 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id w3so18484951wmi.4 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=matroska-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=la7WMcufED9RYwGiJGWi1NrY8mJFEb7QvuMruoftnA0=; b=GnG3xxAtfnFkTMt3sS/XXjk9yy4zoEHe7lZLfk+4QiO7DkUdSQvKnPJfxjIrtm3aZS pI8zWz9iJZ7fdDK3qp2bHM3e3PTezKj57oFJ9zMxgeAA2TewWBlAkkruLJuW37VRq2Nj 2DxB9eoaZX2SPpn8B4cRuLkxu4hq5NQ6X8bacNuy0xfJy6dwPDqeK9YvThS6TBkowXSd uRUV5wktbPS7yizvFeKs2nqJrQwg+NlAHvDtkKAsCk9onjRFgee8WV9LbbGVkCUFScIr 2dr8/AqSK879v89mD3xdhTJoMA39d4pxPMYTqu+sb66l90TGuC8p+USGDa4H9Eiq7/0E jb9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=la7WMcufED9RYwGiJGWi1NrY8mJFEb7QvuMruoftnA0=; b=VdWSStedw2icZKJ/vVFjvEJ3YMCjYx+zTq+FwCceXC3gZZVncr/G+w/6OHn1kowFh6 /lzyNq9ePG2X+aOqZRzNE3aNCeQHevVvQl7jpdFYl2wDyf8le/G6AZk08GBVlFargbo1 3bzF2A8mc1jDFNhB/WwXbMN+BFkh6KI9frKK7TIzNrX4lwav251yxfY/qZjY/xU349DP cu9LpgAxnyBzT5myA5lqhH05SA/w0iomAL7u3vtWLrwWynOhNK3O6cVfAuhshzpeDiev QBtT0cY8oR2z3MeGGfCmbNoq0V10z6mYQ3rduZCmi50BJIbJ6rGQVaCYWbFv2LBH2ai/ c+LA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313u7ueSt+mBUAfP+brEmnm6NoaG35E9L8xjnX9AoHY3Ajmcg+V bqIjzu2IqxyXt+r/o0oFAN5nVrq2L7F1KA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTfBROz1z0/PzJFml1xAlBmorrHamK1E/kuJ8yIubuBAL+sLSZ5buc4Mhy2A1KkDDH+mXLmg==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c208:: with SMTP id x8mr10539098wmi.49.1595008471345; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:cb09:8016:ce27:dbb:de24:b9f4:6eab? (2a01cb098016ce270dbbde24b9f46eab.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb09:8016:ce27:dbb:de24:b9f4:6eab]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u23sm16775284wru.94.2020.07.17.10.54.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 19:54:28 +0200
Message-Id: <BDCA11AC-1014-4CB8-96AF-B7733CD36973@matroska.org>
References: <87lfjijh50.fsf@bunkus.online>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, cellar@ietf.org, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <87lfjijh50.fsf@bunkus.online>
To: Moritz Bunkus <mo=40bunkus.online@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/bmDu1tAsCtnkS9WepKTKXSzO3Is>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] namespace considerations for ebml's definition of EBML Schema
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:54:35 -0000

Same for me. I don't really care about the value. And I found 3 RFCs with such URN, so why not.
I'll submit another PR (I can't right now) and of them will be merged.
The fact the IETF is phasing out their URLs is a good incentive to use a URN which is stable.

> On 17 Jul 2020, at 17:28, Moritz Bunkus <mo=40bunkus.online@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> I defer to experience (as I don't have any in assigning namespaces). If you
> think that URN urn:ietf:rfc:8794 is the way to go, that's fine with me.
> 
> Kind regards,
> mosu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> Cellar@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar