[Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]
Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Wed, 18 November 2009 19:38 UTC
Return-Path: <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73383A6808 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 Z1ngs9OmzR3Q for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f193.google.com (mail-vw0-f193.google.com [209.85.212.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929E828C0E5 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws31 with SMTP id 31so447003vws.29 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Kzdp7dsuZTQbkEisajmVc+/URJrbugmrFUSnQpNHyww=; b=MJdDavAcv2hy15u2HHlIHCvKgdfUjS8HyFCkM7lkQ72uC4KQcugN4Je7UfXUC04h1e JEKTuZjXK8Tm6T1ory0R+4MazxaplxVqF8usiv31QHEypliMlAVUGI/QE4etL5tXcboa +tLw1jGXyAC7cq0G8HkjKZj2wo/1iwQTJlcrE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=cHK3YrpkwyTCSnC9Gcg1J9fxGO/x4+yjKBcC26KkVYdpllJDjWHpEydPZ8Fs7UmpkF dMZlM6+sbdiQfDOcn0NXtQHpeiAlDmM0DFyWaOopjJVgmvo6FcOVdzgnMlGg0bogdb70 LcaklB4Ks1uoQAiaUWXIkpWXtARqOlJ8ioWuE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.122.229 with SMTP id m37mr7303520vcr.15.1258573080668; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:38:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4ADDF6ED.3080803@btinternet.com>
References: <4ADDF6ED.3080803@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:37:59 -0800
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0911181137w4d105b93i700c0a4e80d12fdc@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, uri-review@ietf.org, gk@ninebynine.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, larmouth@btinternet.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636ed677c65d0bb0478aa61bd"
Subject: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:38:06 -0000
Hi Larry, Martin, Graham, Graham, I haven't seen your response to John Larmouth's request for review on the 'uri-review' list. Did I miss it? Larry & Martin, since this particularly involves IRI syntax, I would appreciate a review from one of you, particularly with an eye to the comparison function. The current description for comparison seems to include a DNS lookup which might be problematic in many use cases. The encoding is also "normally" UTF-8, but I believe that requires a bit more explanation for when an agent gets a OID IRI in one encoding, and needs to compare it to an IRI in another encoding. It's also not clear to me in what cases a oid IRI might use numbers in arcids, and where it might use strings with unicode characters. I probably don't understand OIDs well enough, but the description so far makes me think that these are substitutable -- again providing problems for a comparison function. Next, if these are intended to be more human-friendly than the numerical representations, how are bidi characters to be displayed? John, Is there any requirement to compare OID URNs (urn:oid:*) to OID IRIs? If not, this should be mentioned as being not desired. If these questions have already been answered in the discussion on uri-review, I must have missed that. I believe Alfred raised very similar questions in Dec 2008 and I did not see answers in the spec or on the list. Thanks, Lisa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Larmouth <j.larmouth@btinternet.com> Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 AM Subject: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme] To: lisa.dusseault@gmail.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com Lisa and Alexey, The following request for IANA registration has been made following earlier discussions in uri-review. It was originally intended to request "permanent", but Ira said that this was not normal and that we should request "provisional". Alred HÎnes responded saying that as it is based on an existing ITU-T Rec. X.660 | ISO/IEC 9834-1, an immediate request for "permanent" might be better. The current request to IANA is for "provisional", but presumably this could be upgraded if you were to recommend that? Whether "provisional" or "permanent", it would be helpful if you could give the proposed IANA registration your support for rapid progression. Thank you. John L -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:08:18 +0100 From: John Larmouth <j.larmouth@btinternet.com> Reply-To: j.larmouth@btinternet.com To: iana@iana.org I refer to the Internet Draft draft-larmouth-oid-iri-03. I would like IANA to register 'oid:' as a "permanent" URI scheme, with the registration template given in the 'IANA considerations' section of the Internet Draft draft-larmouth-oid-iri-03. This request is on behalf of the ASN.1 group, which is collaborative work between ITU-T SG 17 Q.12 (I am the Rapporteur) and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 WG 9 (I am the Convenor). I understand that a "provisional" registration would be approptiate until the I-D reaches a certain stage of processing, but the target is "permanent" (so an early progression to "permanent" would be good), as the scheme is based on existing ITU-T Recommendations and ISO Standards that are stable. There has been review of earlier drafts by uri-review, with no adverse comments that have not been addressed, but I understand that you will appoint your own expert for a further review. I will contact the Area Director shortly to alert her to this request. Thank you. John L -- Prof John Larmouth Larmouth T&PDS Ltd (Training and Protocol Design Services Ltd) 1 Blueberry Road Bowdon j.larmouth@btinternet.com Altrincham Cheshire WA14 3LS England Tel: +44 161 928 1605
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… Graham Klyne
- [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [Uri-review] [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as … Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… John Larmouth
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… John Larmouth
- Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:… Larry Masinter