urn was Re: Model draft

["tom.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>
To: "tom.petch" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Model draft


> There appear to be two issues you are raising with the name space
> declaration in this document.  One issue is whether the version goes
> before or after the model scoping.  Because the schema and its semantics
> relate to the protocol as well as the model, it seemed to go in the
> order we have it (version, lfmmodel.)  However, after reading your
> comment and thinking about it, I suspect that you are correct about the
> ordering, and it should be lfbmodel then 1.0.
>
> The second issue appears to be our use of an http uri rather than a
> field delimited urn as the namespace.  The use of HTTP URIs seems fully
> conformant.  And the use of web space URIs seems recommended by RFC
> 3470.  The use of URNs for namespaces is offered there as a fallback
> alternative.  So it is not clear to me what the problem is with our usage.
>

Not a big problem, perhaps not even little one.  I agree that HTTP URIs are
recommended by RFC3470 but there is a reference there to ongoing work in an I-D
that later became RFC3688, so for me, RFC3688 trumps RFC2470 - and there, as I
read it, urn are recommended.  Certainly I see a lot of urn and cannot recall
when I last saw a HTTP URI, apart from here.  I will ask on apps-discuss and
come back to you.

Tom Petch

> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> tom.petch wrote:
> > I think that the URIs are not quite right yet.
> >
> > As per RFC3688, the targetNamespace should be a urn, eg
> >
> >  targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
> >
> > and the schema needs a name if it is to be registered with IANA, eg
> >
> > "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:forces:xxx:1.0"
> >