Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID

worley@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 11 February 2016 20:10 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F781B39D1 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 pqYA6y_6ccfy for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93F961B39D2 for <urn-nid@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.240]) by resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id H8961s0095BUCh4018Albv; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:10:45 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.143.237.82]) by resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id H8Ak1s00H1nMCLR018Alyw; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:10:45 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u1BKAi0r010164; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:10:44 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u1BKAh0o010160; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:10:43 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
To: "Ing-Wher \(Helen\) Chen" <ichen@kuatrotech.com>
Subject: Re: two-week review: registering formal "rdns" NID
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR06MB0950CF1F45AD3C4FA844A0BFD0D60@DB5PR06MB0950.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> (ichen@kuatrotech.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:10:43 -0500
Message-ID: <87si0z3t4s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1455221445; bh=I71MNVAFAo+pwMQMwuy0xqweGG1f2/RuYb/SSkdstYw=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=jbdxhl9JYlN4WdpdwlHvJVmqT54QMAert1r7c3GyvmJbXaEvL+uZpHnfCc9nJp37p bZV6B5Pp2MjPmskBzrAiZXCJARiSSdM6BB7jdVIeCxuXrsdRgrdcQL0zPYDFH7JoKj gc3kOEFzIXzmCMeXd31Z5KMj9/lUWa05kaKzuqffoQq9OnqGQ2We2jCy5i6ypUOP/U Wx34sQ3spfvLUc4qkGJj7MdvAtkq56wvUaOvcb9VLEo6NB5+l4NSJ6MnzmZ2c+roiE S6aBBYi0OSkZeAvyxu2EofC7urIKM/aO59TH/gdQcc4/15yA3ddzWzozXOooIGnKRJ Zwe8XIPLLlX6Q==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/wEIRTDvf4vPJPW9ORw6lkK6St2A>
Cc: urn-nid@apps.ietf.org
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: <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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:10:49 -0000

Comments on draft-chen-rdns-urn-00:

I don't know how much this matters, but the owner of a domain name can
change over time.  This gave us some trouble when writing RFC 7462, and
eventually we gave up on using domain names as a basis for URNs.
There's a URN NID which I can't find right now which bases uniqueness on
domain names, but the URNs include a timestamp of creation.

The rule for lexical equivalence can't be implemented because there is
no algorithm for parsing an "rdns" URN into <reverse-dns> and <dss>, and
the lexical equivalence rule specifies that <reverse-dns> is
case-insensitive and <dss> is case-sensitive (as far as I can tell; you
should update the wording).

The nonterminal "revers-dns" is used in some places, and in other
places, "reverse-dns" is used.  I suggest cosistently using the latter.

I suggest consistently using <...> around nonterminal names.

The grammar of <reverse-dns> is implicitly given by the grammar of
domain names, but the grammar of <dss> is unspecified.  I suggest that
you add

    <dss> ::= 1*<URN chars>

Given that internationalized domain names are coming into use, you
should specify that <reverse-dns> is based on the A-label form [RFC
5890] for internationalized labels, i.e., the labels as turned into
ASCII by Punycode.

Dale