IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Conceptual proposal for extensibility of Alert-Info URNs

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Fri, 18 June 2010 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C863A696A for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDXd9wFCIBo2 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068213A6803 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EALsNG0xAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACDHZtycaZ6iSKRIYElgwZwBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,439,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="122969172"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2010 13:15:37 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.142] (dhcp-161-44-174-142.cisco.com [161.44.174.142]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5IDFbFK027691; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:15:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4C1B7179.9060904@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:15:37 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FD73619B@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <AANLkTik6DISW4wY-q4yoJsOfuRk_dWsr-_N_iKC9vy6x@mail.gmail.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FD7361A2@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <AANLkTiksRlgdu7HIjSbPqq6u-XM-wtbnlX3U9a3Nerb8@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimrLwQklCZG31MT19ddULanpOozJe_z2Dz4rvRY@mail.gmail.com> <4C1A26AE.2060401@cisco.com> <4C1AD9FC.3090703@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4C1AD9FC.3090703@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Conceptual proposal for extensibility of Alert-Info URNs
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:15:35 -0000

Peter,

Ok - I couldn't remember the precise term and used something convenient.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/17/10 7:44 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
>> Requiring all the categories to be specified in one URN has the downside
>> that all category values need to be standardized as part of a single URN
>> spec. Conversely, consolidating multiple URNs gives the potential to
>> define a new category via an entirely new URN scheme. 
> 
> To clarify, there is no such thing as a "URN scheme". Upon approval,
> draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns will register a URN namespace
> identifier (NID) in accordance with RFC 3406, not a "URN scheme".
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email