draft-chen-rdns-urn-05 (Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID)

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 18 March 2016 20:50 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 (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DB612D772 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSFwGuq1y5CP for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A962D12D68C for <urn-nid@apps.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net ([]) by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id XYp31s0032Fh1PH01YqBMa; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:50:11 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([]) by resomta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id XYqA1s00A1nMCLR01YqArU; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:50:10 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com []) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u2IKo9co019925; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:09 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u2IKo8PP019920; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:08 -0400
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: draft-chen-rdns-urn-05 (Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID)
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR06MB0950D42A59AA62292470E12DD0B30@DB5PR06MB0950.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> (ichen@kuatrotech.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:08 -0400
Message-ID: <87vb4j5x4v.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1458334211; bh=EYAfyHWW9JBMCjOLSCHQg7W0LIVm732J38Jedhx2U2g=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=g+t35Ca1Phgvh7UHUseKikOtwRumc7yt5DaDbj6aIvsyuVevc+4gaqRCeEYTUnSl1 LsdATUosr/57Mc9zSUL3F+vD+/V9QunqfOunA+WqJOJ2NGQINF86wvJnH7z72vRm7k ce20kxUQJAMNW/Y/J5Hgz88YOQ8bFPZkhYs2/J+1yjjS/cm8mVs62iom6APmHOcSCk epeiqHBdGQhnD/2UeIxMzllt7Rh+mnbxCYcky1x/5Sorir528fQ2IrDtse1WP5fLmH bW4hcOwLJ/+YRG0gvo/oFuwE9RTlWDZXiRn6xO4SXA2uanWCTfKOHMsQ3kH/YQ0sQP l1bTtCiT+UXqw==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/sRpdhqpw-t4t0A15svbM_eywGj8>
Cc: urn-nid@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 18 Mar 2016 20:50:12 -0000

This version clarifies and simplifies many issues and I think it is
nearly ready for publication.  However, there are two issues:

       <rdns-trans>     ::= <lower> | <number> | <others> | <reserved>

Comparing with RFC 2141, "<others>" should be "<other>".

The alternative "<reserved>" should be removed.  In RFC 2141, I see:

   <trans>       ::= <upper> | <lower> | <number> | <other> | <reserved>

However the final alternative in that production is not to be used in
practice.  Its expansion is:

   <reserved>    ::= '%" | "/" | "?" | "#"

However, the immediately following text in 2141 states that "%" is to be
used only to introduce %-escapes (which this draft does in the
production "<rdns-URN-char>").  And the remaining three characters are
described as 

   RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular
   purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and
   precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore,
   these characters are RESERVED for future developments.  Namespace
   developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but
   rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character.