Re: [dispatch] Submission of "URN Namespace for Metaverse Standards Forum Resources"

Rick,

Can I suggest that you direct this comment to the urn@ietf.org mailing list? That seems like the right venue for this (potential) discussion.

-Jim

On 19 Dec 2023, at 15:17, Rick van Rein wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In my humble of the URN namespace, it is intended to pin down specifications under names, with the intent of interoperability of independent implementations.  It is not primarily intended as a system of delegation for URI namespace allocation.
>
> Ref: RFC 8141, Section 6.2, "registrants SHOULD provide a stable specification documenting the URN namespace definition".
>
> Based on this, it seems unfit for the URN space to assign sub-names for something as broad and unspecific as "resources published by" any party.  Exceptions may exist for parties that can forward definitions to an existing naming/numbering system, such as the ISBN or the DOI numbering system, if the target organisation happens to be a standards organisation.
>
> Constructive alternatives to a name scope delegation could be a mixture of
> (1) to separately register URN forms for specific formats
> (2) since this appears to be specific to one or a few domain names, to use the tag: URI defined in RFC 4151 or perhaps a URL format
> (3) use the OID branch for Private Enteriprise Numbers, and possibly use urn:oid: as per RFC 3061.
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>  -Rick
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch