Re: request for assignment of informal urn

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 26 February 2015 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 14A551A1A13 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:28 -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_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 P2qTzUi-m3k9 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 678A41A01AA for <urn-nid@apps.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrl12 with SMTP id rl12so10959582iec.4 for <urn-nid@apps.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OXwlDUngqpdFHsWqkDOVHT9hVA80FfRPkXFvUx3JwfE=; b=aJICHYwjfIWVIU6HB12VPgBITahIJ6PlaE3909T39/8Xg2ZzDw5Blu2pkeyO58KXts F4DzdWCXyc/hjjAFL2L3gaS8c0d/akcVCFwdpmcRa2/7wb87HNgDtEMqzUISMgn7qsrD OdMZ8uOnZEqUg3sjHiaTclPweZJWYAxtlbuFTlKQDDuXcL/NftmwcNCMfWVX2CM6kUCJ 3ekVMUkMLAQva2+rPmkJH826QUAIl8U/MDy1sITiPq4oOyOcwSPQd7bB1m/qItK3aww4 5qnwwk8TCgObx6dEHIb28eYbQgPmwH9J9kziOZr62ZNSdV1KSXDFUSm3VkWF90bn3yHi 7PAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQniy9bIkPxs/dTWy+QK1OAhIoI8r6qs7o0k/7dMqb7M1Lwipznm1zLbNZBE5K8ysERR79JQ
X-Received: by 10.50.66.198 with SMTP id h6mr9435830igt.22.1424924305832; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e196sm8540001ioe.40.2015.02.25.20.18.24 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EE9E8F.1090907@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:18:23 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, yoshiki.sameshima.vf@hitachi-solutions.com
Subject: Re: request for assignment of informal urn
References: <87a9019wcv.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <87a9019wcv.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/sYml8lilL5w1fJSy-mW_xV-wCGs>
Cc: tomohiro.misawa.rf@hitachi-solutions.com, urn-nid@apps.ietf.org, takanobu.hosoe.ju@hitachi-solutions.com
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:18:28 -0000

On 2/25/15 8:37 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> <yoshiki.sameshima.vf@hitachi-solutions.com> writes:
>> As a result, our urn is a form of UUID/ISBN + FILENAME + EPUBCFI.
>
> For some reason, I overlooked the FILENAME component.  That's a mistake
> on my part.
>
> But it means that we can't look at these as simply "UUID/ISBN plus
> fragment identifier (EPUBCFI)".
>
> An alternative syntax would be if the FILENAME information could be
> included in the EPUBCFI.  But I expect that you've verfied that there is
> no good way to do that.
>
> I can see why you'd need a new namespace, because you need the
> additional FILENAME information in the URN proper.

But fragment identifiers are disallowed by RFC 2141. This registration 
can't go forward until the URNBIS work completes. At which point, I 
think it would be better to define real namespaces (e.g., it's likely 
that the ISBN namespace will be updated to allow f-components) instead 
of forcing it into an informal namespace.

I STRONGLY encourage the authors of this registration to read the latest 
URNBIS document and provide feedback on the urn@ietf.org list:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/

Coordination with Juha Hakala about the ISBN namespace would also be 
very beneficial.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/