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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 17 July 2020 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 743283A003D for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 G_h6tsb23Er7 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D9F3A0035 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F07389A5; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id offukUVGn6sl; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034AB389A3; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4360424C; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Moritz Bunkus <mo=40bunkus.online@dmarc.ietf.org>, cellar@ietf.org
CC: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <87pn8ujzmr.fsf@bunkus.online>
References: <3E54D46B-6D44-4095-9A5A-D9FB7CDB0F90@dericed.com> <CAOXsMFJpVN+uDkqcNFync2+Zt5j2hUVu1-3AawreA1mYQNeBkA@mail.gmail.com> <87pn8ujzmr.fsf@bunkus.online>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:19:51 -0400
Message-ID: <19827.1594999191@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/wnM0vljurqSKTsiXlnzsizhKsKc>
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 15:19:55 -0000

Best email explanation intro for those in the CC.
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/cslvLodt2wbXci5VQOt9Z5MmRp0/

Moritz Bunkus <mo=40bunkus.online@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > I agree with Reto; the URL provides more information to the user than a
    > urn. Personally I wouldn't want to point it to the draft website. The
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8794 site, even though it doesn't exist yet,
    > seems to be the one providing the most useful information. So let's use
    > that one.

The IETF is generally trying to phase out the tools.ietf.org site in favour
of the HTML that the datatracker renders for IDs, and the rfc-editor.org
site.  (this transition will take years...)

The best url will be https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8794
This points to the HTML, the XML, the PDF and the errata.

But, the origin of this conversation is to provide an XML name space for the
verification of EBML.
For that, the URN urn:ietf:rfc:8794 is probably the better choice.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-