IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 18 June 2010 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 9728E28C0DB for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 tAB-HxF+FB4U for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962F23A68A9 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-228-47.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.228.47]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AA4B403F3; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:07:15 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4C1B7D88.7030600@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:07:04 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
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> <4C1B7179.9060904@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C1B7179.9060904@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms030201010101020408030306"
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 14:07:11 -0000

Understood. The term "branch of the URN tree" might be an informal way
of describing a URN namespace identifier. But the charter proposal says
"URN scheme", too, so I just wanted to nip that error in the bud. :)

On 6/18/10 7:15 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 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
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email