Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Old thread alert!

On 8/17/12 1:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-16 23:01, Alfred � wrote:
>> (no hat)
>> 
>> On 08/16/2012, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2012 09:59 AM, Andy Newton wrote:
>>>> Given that URNs are suppose to have permanence or persistence
>>>> or whatever we are calling it today and a resolution
>>>> mechanism, this desire to shoehorn identifiers that need to
>>>> qualify as a URI into the URN system might be wrong. An
>>>> identifier that must be a URI does not necessarily need or
>>>> have all the properties to be a URN. Just an observation.
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> URNs were intended to be _resource names_, i.e. names of
>>> resources rather than merely unique identifiers.  The
>>> expectation was that such resources would generally be at least
>>> potentially accessible over the network, and that it would be
>>> possible to resolve such names to resource locations.
>>> Everyone agreed that it should be possible to assign URNs to
>>> resources that were not resolvable, or at least not resolvable
>>> for the time being.  But the idea that URNs are appropriate for
>>> use whenever someone needed a unique non-resolvable identifier
>>> that qualifies as a URI, always has struck me as bizarre and
>>> contrary to the intended purpose of URNs.
>>> 
>>> Keith
>> 
>> +1 (for both statements)
> 
> For the record: -1-
> 
> urn:uuid: is used a lot in practice, and I simply don't see a
> practical problem with it.
> 
> Are you saying these shouldn't be URIs in the first place, or that
> a separate URI scheme would have been ok (in which case those would
> be URNs as well, just not using the "URN" URI scheme, no?).
> 
>> I already have responded similarly to the seminal email wrt this
>> topic (by Julian) that has motivated the creation this I-D (by
>> PSA).
>> 
>> The above notes seem to be properly backed the following
>> excerpts from RFC 1737, "Requirements for Uniform Resource
>> Names", Section 2, "Requirements for functional capabilities":
>> 
>> |      ... |      It is intended that the lifetime of a URN be
>> permanent. |      ... | |      URNs can be assigned to any
>> resource that might conceivably |      be available on the
>> network, for hundreds of years. |      ...
>> 
>> IMO, the concepts of "example URNs" and "testing URNs" seem to
>> be fundamentally incompatible with these requirements.  For the
>> latter, rapid software development for testing of namespace
>> management and resolution systems can be furthered by "early
>> reservation/assignment" of URN Namespace IDs by IANA (as soon as
>> urn-nid mailing list and expert review "thumbs up" is obtained
>> for a new URN Namespace proposal.
> 
> The use case for reserved example URNs are specifications. It's
> much better if people use one reserved for this purpose than making
> up invalid ones (and that's what started this discussion).

Exactly. Just as we have reserved domain names for specifications (RFC
2606), I think it might be useful to have a reserved URN namespace ID
for specifications. I'd be happy to more carefully scope the
Internet-Draft to reflect that narrow focus.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlDrFWAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxNBACfd5mSh3XTngTaHgBLiNLX07f1
VsUAoMgpbVZhAAJ4fo2FmAPwf4/WOn/g
=jk5H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----