RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> Wed, 14 May 2003 16:54 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27404 for <uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4EGLIb30106 for uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:21:18 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4EGLIB30103 for <uri-review-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:21:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27397; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:54:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FzXz-0007Wf-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:56:07 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FzXy-0007Wb-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:56:06 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4EGL7B30070; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:21:07 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4EGKEB30027 for <uri-review@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:20:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27369 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FzWx-0007W3-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:55:03 -0400
Received: from smtp-relay-1.adobe.com ([192.150.11.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FzWw-0007VT-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 12:55:03 -0400
Received: from inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-3 [153.32.251.51]) by smtp-relay-1.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4EGtbHX012500 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (mailsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.192]) by inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4EGtLnl029507 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 09:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MASINTERPAD ([153.32.67.25]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id HEVZ0900.0P6; Wed, 14 May 2003 09:55:21 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
To: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:55:21 -0700
Message-ID: <000201c31a39$9b104a60$19432099@MASINTERPAD>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <p05210606bae5a85b5eec@[129.46.227.161]>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I cannot find a functional difference between the spelling "permanent identifiers" with a D, O and I rather than a U, R and N. It seems to me that both have the same intrinsic difficulties. If the DOI consortium wants to resolve identifiers, it could as easily resolve those that start with "urn" as those that start with "doi", couldn't it? Or at least those that start with "urn:doi"? >* DOI administration and resolution (sections 6, 7) But the document's statement in section 7 is vacuous. It says: "Resolution of a DOI is accomplished through an appropriate resolution service using a network protocol specific to that service." I can't figure out what this means; it isn't to contrast the method with resolution through an inappropriate resolution service, or using a network protocol which isn't appropriate for the service? But there's no actual definition for how resolution takes place. Nor does it actually say how administration works. It makes reference to the "International DOI Foundation", without any reference to the terms of incorporation of this organization (if it is?) or its provenance. For all I know, the "International DOI Foundation" is Norm in his garage. Should we assign a URI namespace for everyone who asks for one? Section 8.1 attempts to address "demonstrated utility", and claims there are "10 million examples in current use on the Internet". How was this number measured? (A google search on 'doi' shows 1 million hits, but most of those are about Doi-san (Japanese name) or the Department of Industry or Directorate of Information. I wouldn't mind so much if the document were up-front about this being a naming service for a for-fee service for name registration, whether or not it is "non-profit". It's the same business model as the for-fee domain name business, or, for that matter, RealNames. Since "DOI and DOI.ORG are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" (according to http://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html), shouldn't there be an additional intellectual property statement? If someone were to use a 'doi' URI without the permission of the trademark/patent holder, would they be subject to any intellectual property constraints? Larry _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: dr… hardie
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Larry Masinter
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Martin Duerst