Re: [ESDS] Proposed Charter - 2nd update

Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net> Mon, 29 September 2008 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <esds-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: esds-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-esds-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CD73A6B85; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: esds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C519F3A67DB for <esds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 jbIYIHQ352GZ for <esds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DDA3A6B21 for <esds@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from mlpc-mgh-p.eng.cam.ac.uk ([129.169.78.104]:62754) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:mgh12) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) id 1KkMnN-0002Lr-O0 (Exim 4.70) (return-path <mgh12@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:44:29 +0100
Message-Id: <6CEACCC3-70DF-4DD7-8292-3BF42478AA4F@cantab.net>
From: Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
To: Olivier DUBUISSON <olivier.dubuisson@orange-ftgroup.com>
In-Reply-To: <48E100D5.6040104@orange-ftgroup.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:44:27 +0100
References: <7072030F-CFCF-4B27-B360-453C5AC08CE4@ca.afilias.info><8CFA0F37- 2FA6-4C4B-A55A-1EEA40ACA1BB@ca.afilias.info><73B27D1C0A821748AEAFFF51ADCB7D9D023C85F7@MAILSRV.at4wireless.com> <0418A976-0362-4390-B76F-4D7C2BD6AA09@cantab.net> <48E100D5.6040104@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: esds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ESDS] Proposed Charter - 2nd update
X-BeenThere: esds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of the ESDS \(Extensible Supplychain Discovery Service\)" <esds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>, <mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/esds>
List-Post: <mailto:esds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds>, <mailto:esds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: esds-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: esds-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Olivier,

Many thanks for this information.

When you mention IRI notation, I assume that you mean  
Internationalized Resource Identifiers as specified in RFC3987?	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt

This is certainly helpful, since it means that also users of other  
data carrier technologies (e.g. DataMatrix) and ISO users of RFID tags  
have a well-defined way to express their identifiers as a structured  
URI or IRI, rather than as a completely opaque binary string.

Best regards,

- Mark



On 29 Sep 2008, at 17:22, Olivier DUBUISSON wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Mark Harrison wrote:
> [...]
>> As you point out, it is essential that a protocol for Discovery  
>> Services should be agnostic about the identification technology and  
>> should be able to support multiple families of identifiers.   
>> Regarding the latter point, it is important to avoid collisions  
>> between syntactically identical identifiers from different  
>> identifier families.  To qualify the context or namespace of each  
>> identifier, we can construct a URI, in which each namespace has a  
>> distinct URI prefix.  There have already been a few helpful  
>> postings on this ESDS list about that topic.
>
> Recommendation ITU-T X.668 | ISO/IEC 9834-9 is a solution to the  
> issue of qualifying the namespace of each identifier.
>
> See http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/New+Standard+Unifies+ID+Schemes+For+Tagbased+Applications.aspx
> for some info.
>
> ITU-T X.668 is an approved standard but it is not (freely) available  
> yet. I am sure there will be a way to provide this group with a copy  
> once the ESDS working group is officially launched.
>
> Since an IRI notation for OIDs is being standardized, you have the  
> URI that Mark's was pointing out in his email.
> -- 
> Olivier DUBUISSON
> France Telecom
> Pilotage de la normalisation/Standards Steering
> NSM/RD/DDEV - BP 50702 - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
> tel: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - fax: +33 1 58 15 52 05

_______________________________________________
ESDS mailing list
ESDS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/esds