Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Lisa,

As I recall, I didn't respond on URI-Review, but to a request from IANA (ticket 
IANA #273718), which I copied to John Larmouth as there were some additional 
points I wanted to raise.

I did raise the issue of new URI scheme vs other - see below.

I didn't attempt a detailed technical review, though I did notice some aspects 
of '/' usage and authority that seemed a little unusual to me.

For ease of reference, my final summary was:
[[
(a) the registration goes as provisional for now - no further action needed from 
you, I think.

(b) I believe you plan to take the proposal to IETF standards track, in which 
case I expect the issues will all come up again in last call.  When you have a 
standards track RFC, then that will be a sound indication of sufficient 
consensus for permanent registration - so nothing further required.

When you request last-call for your RFC, it might be worth noting those 
references to debate (as a URI into the discussion list archive indicating the 
start of the relevant discussion) and mentioning in your request to IESG about 
the existing ITU standards using oid:, and underscore that this is documenting 
an existing practice - whatever the merits of the arguments about new scheme vs 
http:, it's not reasonable IMO to retrofit that debate to past work.
]]

#g
--

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 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* <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 AM
> Subject: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> 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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Reply-To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 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                               [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>   Altrincham
>   Cheshire
>   WA14 3LS
>   England
>   Tel: [phone]
>