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

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

I think this registration is a good example of some of the difficulties in IRI scheme registration we'll have to face.

Requiring a DNS normalization to do comparison seems completely out of line.

I don't understand why this wasn't done as an extension to the "urn:oid" scheme.

   Consideration was given to extending the "urn:oid" scheme to allow
   names as well as numbers, but this was considered complicated and
   confusing for existing uses of "urn:oid".  A separate new 'oid' IRI
   scheme was considered far preferable.

How is it less complicated and confusing to have two kinds of OID URIs instead of one?


Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Larry Masinter; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Martin Duerst; [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]

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]