Re: draft-seantek-rdf-urn-00 and draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Fri, 19 December 2014 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
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 D0F551A8939 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:02:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WfPdhEsP_B1P for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A3F1A00E0 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [23.241.1.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F03F22E200 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:02:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54944C13.4000005@seantek.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:02:27 -0800
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: urn-nid@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-seantek-rdf-urn-00 and draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00
References: <877fxnmxxt.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <877fxnmxxt.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/KpdtzfaiJti26yetTMgrjqeHE6A
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Dec 2014 16:02:41 -0000

On 12/19/2014 8:00 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> writes:
>> Actually I would say that the resolution database is not intrinsic to
>> the proposal.
> If the resolution database is not intrinsic to the proposal, I think you
> should remove it from the NID registrations.  The reason for that is
> that the resolution process is a major differentiator between this
> proposal and a number of others.

Ok...in your opinion is this "major differentiator" an advantage, or a 
disadvantage, of the proposal(s)?

Sean