Re: Request for comments: Delegation of urn:ogf

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Freek,

Your new draft is certainly better.  I'll wait when it gets uploaded for 
more careful reading and further comments, if any.

Mykyta

24.07.2011 23:06, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> 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