IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Fri, 18 April 2014 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@coactus.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A841A0372 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 NmQjhmDc5U0F for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com (mail-pb0-f47.google.com [209.85.160.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C1D1A01EF for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id up15so1565694pbc.20 for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2KEXzUWcGAURlWhW/17fah2GSaEVtQ19zY94vps/f1Q=; b=Ib/UnVyyFPENyiOQuz3P+BlILtNR5v65hCy3hfVNf1pRCiXaty94KG9OriSuSv4/Fm kdK5UNmqDJVojp+QzXiKOTBlQ1Ee7DLsJ0Uh0GZ4MLwapb5m5uenlafGmnjvPDattJur 2xteIkIn+5MqKbGDKSvVcBPJtZ8hXt2evwIZLhuSNgDymcDQ+gAFhcTtud2LY/OvBVFd wglmbw8/cyEOGQhFoNOTDLulc520a8fifAwjxrWB+hXOq6zkDFEu0TMrMt3KTsXNIy1a HYtoVx6I2VsDXis/iDIt0JR2dlBxgD2mzPcHifn5BMHu/wPdp4VdjAsogGo8T1l2ETyT 37PA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMCJ9PO6y3Hdhk0HaZDXqRbYdch9y8DMZEPnOrsjH8PN2run30WYVd3C+MgR1ukMbiJelm
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.233.9 with SMTP id ts9mr22609383pac.37.1397834397463; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@coactus.com
Received: by 10.70.103.164 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.0.216.13]
Received: by 10.70.103.164 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwh+RV8FfaM+R8UA9--JHkb7V2gnj0N1ZCQ_RL6LMhcoAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+Lwia99RdyO4RFScSwCaVHLsr_BRzmXK18eUoxGFti79Vog@mail.gmail.com> <001976FFC9FE8FFCAA2E7990@JCK-EEE10> <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <534FE7BC.4070002@gmx.de> <CAMm+Lwjr1dmGoKRVRvmX1fxettWEyx6sm88Ry4Ri4fzJf0ZA8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOh_aGr8CPpK+1x3_MgAGF9khMB4sxXoPGBD6GAjyUGrEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh+RV8FfaM+R8UA9--JHkb7V2gnj0N1ZCQ_RL6LMhcoAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:19:56 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TnAnqne-w8uqd70W1sJaEij93vE
Message-ID: <CALcoZioKSLxtK9APfmSqQaKWSMWFSmeiwdrsndd0v2cEnbqmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b111c53b74b7c04f752ae32"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/3FZYzP3p8sOvGo1qGsEBSmpjz1Y
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:35:26 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, urn@ietf.org, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:20:03 -0000

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We can certainly use URIs. The issue here is whether we claim it has
> 'name like' semantics or 'locator like'.

Whether it's a name or a locator is not an intrinsic property of the
string, but depends solely upon the presence or absence of a local
resolution mechanism for that string.

A string that *you* might *today* call a "name", might already be a
"locator" to somebody who's rigged a private resolution service. Ten years
from now, that "name" might be a "locator" to all of us.

Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email