Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 19 February 2016 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4C01B2D2F for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AqpTP4ak-IJ7 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD22A1B33F7 for <urn-nid@apps.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-20v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.244]) by resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id LLgq1s0055Geu2801LhPNu; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:41:23 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.143.237.82]) by resomta-po-20v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id LLhN1s00F1nMCLR01LhNnT; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:41:23 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u1JKfLnj024997; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:41:22 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u1JKfLQ8024994; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:41:21 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: "Ing-Wher \(Helen\) Chen" <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Subject: Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR06MB095084BB6E00ED02E70192F8D0AF0@DB5PR06MB0950.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> (ichen@kuatrotech.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:41:21 -0500
Message-ID: <87povsmo0e.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1455914483; bh=ZUSZXYS982dl/Fiqd+ijkV6RmiduAgv4xbbfKwwYjOs=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=s6FEGRw0uHew/D4vHcbeDAO3qBgI+KDYy+9N/UX+IIvc0tzg0/nhGi0y8JSDVwAar ADdqwjex46bKrdIHbQAkrjvRQUO6wHbkHMARgl18175a2Obc4IoxA32iWh6aA6XKy3 r6Xm+x4KAlylP+DrCQJ52xFK1D/m0D8LFB4rGpPdMlb/Q8xsxYmHw4odrx3x8JOuUb PSYxMva14OBrISlQHbx7ijRWFDbal66iI+nZj2hja13I+/hHnhXl2Ctx5BOemQ6TEd YlAT2sybS2WPtDZbPoko5qfsxjq5aHfF1aQLwduRoB9UM/ZqZA97YEadaOCotwos3E vgnK5G3AzQtEQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/52U72G2qzuqEwfSVIkD9YE-Pv3c>
Cc: urn-nid@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:41:27 -0000

Comments on draft-chen-rdns-urn-02:

"Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen" <ichen@kuatrotech.com> writes:
>> Comments on draft-chen-rdns-urn-00:
>
> [Helen]  Just a note that at the time that I submitted to
>                urn-nid@apps.ietf.org for review, the latest version was -01.

I should have noticed that!

I think your changes take care of the problems that I've noticed.

>> The rule for lexical equivalence can't be implemented because there is no
>> algorithm for parsing an "rdns" URN into <reverse-dns> and <dss>, and the
>> lexical equivalence rule specifies that <reverse-dns> is case-insensitive and
>> <dss> is case-sensitive (as far as I can tell; you should update the wording).
>
> [Helen]  I updated the section on "Rules for Lexical Equivalence".  On second
>                thought, because "rdns" URNs are meant to be XML
>                namespaces of enterprise YANG modules, I think the
>                rules for lexical equivalence for "rdns" URNs should be
>                as defined for those of XML namespaces.

There might be a problem, as RFC 2141 prescribes that "urn" and the NID
("rdns") are case-insensitive, whereas the draft prescribes that all of
the URN is to be compared case-sensitively.  Looking at RFC 3406, the
definition of the NID registration template, Appendix B.1 gives an
example:

   Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

      FQDNs are case-insensitive.  Thus, the portion of the URN

                  urn:<assigned number>:<FQDN>:

      is case-insensitive for matches.  The remainder of the identifier
      must be considered case-sensitive.

The syntax for rdns URNs is

       "rdns" URN    ::= urn:rdns:<reverse-dns>:<dss>
       <reverse-dns> ::= registered domain name in reverse, each label
                         separated by a colon (":")
       <dss>         ::= 1*<URN chars>

I think we are constrained to require (for URN comparison) that "urn"
and "rdns" be case-insensitive, whereas you can specify whatever rule
you want for the reverse-dns and dss parts.

But perhaps other people on this list have more knowledge of how this
issue has been handled for other URN namespaces.

Dale