Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

"Roy T. Fielding" <> Thu, 30 October 1997 08:20 UTC

Delivery-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:20:54 -0500
Return-Path: owner-uri@Bunyip.Com
Received: from (cnri []) by (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id DAA06338 for <>; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:20:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (services.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id DAA12812; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:23:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA25844 for uri-out; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:08:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA25837 for uri-in; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:08:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (mocha.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA25829 for <>; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:08:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA13571 for uri@services; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:08:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA13568; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:08:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from by id aa15035; 30 Oct 97 0:05 PST
cc: uri@Bunyip.Com,, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:52:20 EST." <>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:58:28 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Message-ID: <>
Sender: owner-uri@Bunyip.Com
Precedence: bulk

>> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location".
>> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution,
>> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time,
>> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator.
>URNs never required a mechanism for resolution.
>> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs.
>Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN
>need not have a resolution method.

That's what I thought too, until RFC 2141 went up for last call.  E.g.,

   7. Functional Equivalence in URNs

      Functional equivalence is determined by practice within a given
      namespace and managed by resolvers for that namespeace.

which in my mind is the same as requiring a resolution method.  There is
no value in the "urn" scheme if it doesn't define functional equivalence.

Grump.  Somebody should stick a spell checker in the RFC process --
I noticed a few weeks ago that the "Standard Copyright Notice" for all
RFCs has misspelled "implementation".