Re: [Uri-review] Fwd: [Fwd: Registration of 'oid:' as a URI/IRI scheme]
Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2009 17:22 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 580B128C119 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:22:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.745
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_22=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 mf28Y7kbk2Xb for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:22:13 -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 7893D28C135 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws31 with SMTP id 31so2531490vws.29 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:21:58 -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:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v9ivHdLiDvokCAXQ686USC0xNQi9cZ5Mr9YI8+DNTKs=; b=IpsrWztd6irxktoa/4FVlsIAe6Z3Xv1gWjmkfU1sZSPFCkuCjfY39M15gNrfJa5Xig c8D5dSsz7HKfYwsxCvtDSq0012aXOZP/4dUaorWrU/FqwJ6rZXmRwLotYx8CJ/U+8d6U de6OiejZzjGwWFwjjZhGtdPZ6qyFMINgWmUp8=
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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kl4nLqUJ5MqRniZ7/LLMNzRE04ygkJip+wjXWIOtUVuNk+xTo282qfklpvu6e0ERKo jaiAP45BE4JyojcCIY6d7IdZnzt/lYRFvuP0943XVZXmStcPYUN/aFYoLRr96VEVqSJJ ruG383k02fR9BdRyvM7dl6uir43V4Mt+HoBsg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.125.87 with SMTP id x23mr9552074vcr.55.1259169718230; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:21:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B0D507A.5020509@btinternet.com>
References: <4ADDF6ED.3080803@btinternet.com> <ca722a9e0911181137w4d105b93i700c0a4e80d12fdc@mail.gmail.com> <4B0D103F.1070509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4B0D507A.5020509@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:21:57 -0800
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0911250921s8ecb334h9648ac56b33e2e62@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
To: j.larmouth@btinternet.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: larmouth@btinternet.com, gk@ninebynine.org, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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, 25 Nov 2009 17:22:14 -0000
Hi John, Please do a -04 as soon as you like. I suspect this round of feedback is about finishing up and reviewers don't yet understand what you intend to do about the feedback. Thanks, Lisa On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:42 AM, John Larmouth <j.larmouth@btinternet.com> wrote: > All, > > As I was cc:ed, let me just say that I appreciate Martin's comments, and I > believe them be largely accurate. > > I am collecting all the comments on this stuff, and will produce a 04 > version when it seems appropriate and comments have died down! > > I am sure we understand the issues and implications of comparison, and for > our purposes they are acceptable. On the // issue, we have oscillated on > that over the production process, and our latest advice is as recorded in 03 > - we use only "oid:/Alerting/....." for example. There *is* a use for > relative OIDs (and they *are* defined in the Recommendations | International > Standards), but we were *not* planning on allowing those in the IRI scheme, > as establishing the context for the relative OID/IRI is more difficult than > in a controlled protocol environment. > > I am not wanting any reply to this, unless someone wants to - I will await > Lisa telling me it is time to do a 04 (addressing known comments as best we > can) for a couple of weeks review, and then to request her to initiate an > IETF-wide Last Call. > > The co-authors (representing the ASN.1 group in ITU-T and ISO/IEC) feel > themselves in waiting and observing mode, but very happy to respond > positively to any suggestions. We just want to get this stuff sewn up and > in place as soon as possible! > > John L > > Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> Hello Lisa, >> >> I have looked at that draft. >> >> On 2009/11/19 4:37, 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. >> >> >> I agree that this locks out many use cases. My guess is that this is >> necessary because there is a proliferation of representations, first there >> are numeric and alpha(numeric) ways to identify arcs, and second, if I >> understand correctly, it may be possible to give more than one >> alpha(numeric) arc, e.g. for different scripts/languages which are like >> translations. At that point, there's virtually no other way than to use >> lookup for comparison. >> >> I think there should be a clearer explanation abouth this and some real >> examples, including (with appropriate circumscription) some non-ASCII ones, >> both in the draft and e.g. at places such as >> http://www.oid-info.com/faq.htm#iri. >> >> If my understanding is correct, then this is not exactly the way that IRIs >> are intended to be used, but it's not something we need to forbid if the >> proponents are aware of the consequences. >> >>> 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. >> >> >> In my eyes, the following: >> >> >>>> >> A URI is >> restricted to the ASCII character set, but [RFC3987], Section 3.1 >> specifies the conversion of the characters allowed in an IRI into the >> characters allowed in a URI, enabling both an IRI and a URI to carry >> the same semantics for the identification. This mapping is an >> integral part of the "oid" URI/IRI scheme. This enables names based >> on the Unicode labels in the International OID tree to be used >> wherever an IRI or a URI is required. >> >>>> >> >> is sufficient, but this may be because I'm too familiar with all this >> encoding stuff. >> >>> 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 >> >> >> I agree that this needs to be explained better. >> >>> -- again providing problems for a comparison function. >> >> >> If the proponents understand the implications, both of having both URI/IRI >> and URN, and of having various forms that need network activity for >> comparison, then in my view, it's their business to decide whether they are >> okay with that or not. There are limits to how far we can force people to >> design good URI/IRI schemes, after that, it is "natural selection". >> >> >>> Next, if these are intended to be more human-friendly than the numerical >>> representations, how are bidi characters to be displayed? >> >> >> The display of bidi characters should follow whatever RFC 3987 (and it's >> successor) say. There is absolutely no point in having special rules for >> displaying bidi "oid:" IRIs. >> >> In addition, I agree with Graham that the use of slashes in this scheme >> should be carefully checked against RFC 3986, and potentially be fixed. In >> my understanding, slashes are only appropriate if relative URIs/IRIs are >> potentially used, and in that case, the whole thing has to start with '//' >> (which wouldn't be a problem because indeed the first part of an OID is an >> authority). But I may as well have some details wrong here, the best person >> to answer this is Roy. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Uri-review mailing list >>> Uri-review@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review >> >> > > -- > 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