Re: New version of certspec (01); request review and URN assignment

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Sat, 09 November 2013 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
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 F275B21E80B7 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:11:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZfohs2YyPAq for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C0111E80FB for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA92A9lr001405; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:10:11 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id rA927OZR4549525; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:07:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id rA927MTi4559391; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:07:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:07:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201311090207.rA927MTi4559391@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
In-reply-to: <F889CBF5-F5DC-4A49-9C89-A49B0B92F87D@seantek.com> (dev+ietf@seantek.com)
Subject: Re: New version of certspec (01); request review and URN assignment
References: <201311042214.rA4MEeNj4209694@shell01.TheWorld.com> <F889CBF5-F5DC-4A49-9C89-A49B0B92F87D@seantek.com>
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 02:11:17 -0000

> From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>

> I understand the debate around this. Overall, I have written the
> draft as an URN specification rather than an URI specification, for
> a few reasons:

> The main "name" requirement (as I understand it) is that a
> particular URN must only refer to one item, and that binding must be
> permanent. For example, urn:ietf has multiple ways of referring to
> the same document (urn:ietf:rfc, urn:ietf:bcp, urn:ietf:std)--the
> point is that once an RFC/BCP/STD number is assigned, the binding is
> permanent.

Now I see.  The "uniqueness" demand is much more in the URN->resource
direction than in the resource->URN direction.  From that point of
view, urn:cert is not problematic.

Dale