[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (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 []) 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 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

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.


---------- 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
I-D reaches a certain stage of processing, but the target is "permanent" (so
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
that have not been addressed, but I understand that you will appoint your
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
  WA14 3LS
  Tel: +44 161 928 1605