Re: [Uri-review] swid and swidpath URI scheme registration request

Hi David,

My apologies, but I think I'm missing part of the scheme definition.  In
Section 5.1, I see:

For URIs that use the "swid" scheme, the scheme specific part MUST
   consist of a referenced software tag's tag-id.  This tag-id MUST be
   URI encoded according to [RFC3986] Section 2.1.

   The following expression is a valid example:

   swid:2df9de35-0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c

I would have typically expected an ABNF production for the tag-id.
Instead, I see the following:

tag-id (index 0): A 16 byte binary string or textual identifier
      uniquely referencing a software component.  The tag identifier
      MUST be globally unique.  If represented as a 16 byte binary
      string, the identifier MUST be a valid universally unique
      identifier as defined by [RFC4122].  There are no strict
      guidelines on how this identifier is structured, but examples
      include a 16 byte GUID (e.g. class 4 UUID) [RFC4122], or a text
      string appended to a DNS domain name to ensure uniqueness across
      organizations.

Given the free-form nature of the text alternative, do I understand
correctly you intend to percent encode any reserved character?  Is this
still the case if the DNS domain name is an IDN?

Since the text format subsumes the UUID format, is there a presumption that
the equivalence rules for text are always preferred to the arithmetic
equivalence rules that UUIDs may use?

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 3:18 PM Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire=
40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> This request is for the registrations of the "swid" and "swidpath" schemes
> defined in sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid/18/.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if there are any questions or concerns.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Waltermire
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>