review requested: "example" NID

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 08 January 2013 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDB521F867D for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JEHhp7fKsh-c for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C39621F866E for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.176] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79AED4005D for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:10:45 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50EB9B1C.2060103@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:05:48 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: urn-nid@ietf.org
Subject: review requested: "example" NID
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:05:41 -0000

For review here, as extracted from draft-saintandre-urn-example-01...

###

2.  Specification Template

2.1.  Namespace ID

   The Namespace ID "example" is requested.

2.2.  Registration Information

   Version 1

   Date: [to be assigned]

2.3.  Declared Registrant of the Namespace

   Registering organization: IETF

   Designated contact: IESG, iesg@ietf.org

2.4.  Declaration of Syntactic Structure

   The Namespace Specific String (NSS) of all URNs that use the
   "example" NID shall have the following structure:

   urn:example:{NSS}

   The NSS is a mandatory string of ASCII characters [RFC20] that
   conforms to the URN syntax requirements [RFC2141] and that provides a



Saint-Andre               Expires July 11, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Example URNs                  January 2013


   name that is useful within the relevant documentation example, test
   suite, or other application.

2.5.  Relevant Ancillary Documentation

   See [RFC6648] for information about deprecation of the "x-"
   convention in protocol parameters and identifiers.

2.6.  Identifier Uniqueness Considerations

   Those who mint example URNs ought to strive for uniqueness in the
   namespace specific string portion of the URN.  However, such
   uniqueness cannot be guaranteed through the assignment process.  As a
   result, implementers are counselled against using example URNs for
   any purposes other than documentation, private testing, and truly
   experimental contexts.

2.7.  Identifier Persistence Considerations

   Once minted, an example URN is immutable.  However, it is simply a
   string and there is no guarantee that the documentation, test suite,
   or other application using the URN is immutable.

2.8.  Process for Identifier Resolution

   Example URNs are not intended to be resolved, and the namespace is
   not and probably never will be registered with a Resolution Discovery
   System.

2.9.  Rules for Lexical Equivalence

   No special considerations; the rules for lexical equivalence
   specified in [RFC2141] apply.

2.10.  Conformance with URN Syntax

   No special considerations

2.11.  Validation Mechanism

   None

2.12.  Scope

   Global

###