Re: Request for comments: Delegation of urn:ogf

[Freek Dijkstra <[e-mail]>]

Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

>> I'm a bit hesitant to add this to the draft, though. In practice, people
>> who want to use ABNF can easily translate the BNF from RFC 2141 themselves.
>>
>> The reason I'm hesitant is that such definition (or should be) in
>> RFC2141bis, not in this document.

> I also thought of RFC 2141bis, and as it isn't finished yet, we can't 
> know for sure what it will imply.  However, given that RFC 3986 is a 
> current Standard which is in force, RFC 2141bis will be compatible with 
> it.  RFC 3986 restricts use of RFC 2141 <reserved> in any part of URI 
> for the purpose other than:
> 
>>     <reserved>     ::= '%"
> percent-encoding,
>> | "/"
> delimiting path components (segments),
>>   | "?"
> delimiting query, and
>>   | "#"
> delimiting fragment identifier.

Both RFC 2141 and RFC 3986 are clear.

What I'm saying is that I rather not include parts of these RFCs in this
urn:ogf document, but strongly prefer to _refer_ to them, even if that
means referring to a BFR notation instead of a ABFR notation.

I hope the references are now clear and unambiguous in my latests draf.

The draft submission tool is still hold (in preparation of the upcoming
IETF), so I attached the latest version. I'll upload it when the
submission tool is available again. If you still have comments, I always
appreciate it.

> Moreover, RFC 2141 just limits the range of chars to be present in URNs 
> whereas specific namespace specifications may place their limitations.  
> I recommend, in order to be compatible with RFC 3986, don't allow RFC 
> 2141 <reserved> in the sub-namespace ID.

That's exactly the recommendation which is already described in section
2.11 of draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf.

>> No, this draft will not defined how to define subnamespaces. It is
>> planned that this is done in a GFD document. A draft of that document is
>> provided at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6478.
>> I expect that is needs a revision or two.
> I suppose that this document should also be referenced in your Section 2.8.

Right now, I leave this process up to the OGF Technical Director, which
can subsequently describe this in a Grid Forum Document (GFD).

The reason not to refer to the GFD was a practical one. The plan is to
publish the GFD after publication of draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf. Hence, the
GFD does not have a identifier (GFD series number) yet, and thus could
not be referred to.

An alternative is to publish both documents simultaneously. An advantage
is that the reference becomes normative instead of informative.

I have no strong preference, but I'm willing to jump through a few loops
to publish them simultaneous. So the reference is now in, just to make
it slightly easier for whoever reads these things to find it :)

Regards,
Freek