[urn] Namespace and Community Considerations Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02.txt

Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> Sun, 25 March 2012 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B5221F8489 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCInXESPGHGa for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E570821F848A for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-4553.meeting.ietf.org ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:58:43 -0400 id 015B4039.4F6F1683.00006854
Message-ID: <4F6F1678.1020001@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:58:32 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: urn@ietf.org
References: <20120312202035.21803.90004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120312202035.21803.90004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [urn] Namespace and Community Considerations Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:58:51 -0000


Following up the editorial notes in the current draft (copied below for 
ease of reference[*]

First, to the question of the bulleted lists:  these were merely 
suggestions of dimensions in which a proposed namespace might differ 
from existing namespaces of similar syntactic structure.

These 2 sections ("namespace" and "community" considerations) were meant 
to address the basic questions of "why do you need a new namespace 
anyway?" and "is your audience broad enough that this merits an 
Internet-wide identifier scheme?".

Mostly what I've seen is that registrants don't understand the 
questions, and first drafts often don't particularly address those 
questions.   That some of the registrations may duplicate text between 
their answers in each section is, I think, more a function of that than 
a reason to conflate the 2 into one section.

Perhaps a better path would be to more clearly articulate the 
question/section requirements in ways that will be compelling to people 
who haven't been privvy to this sort of discussion.  (And, I'd send 
text, but it's my text that is clearly the problem ;-) ).

> [[ Editorial Note:
>    It is acknowledged that, in many cases, the Namespace Considerations
>    and Community Considerations are closely intertwined.  Further, the
>    bulleted lists above (from RFC 3406) seems to be more related to the
>    items in the registration template entitled "Identifier uniqueness
>    considerations", "Identifier persistence considerations", "Process of
>    identifier assignment", and "Process for identifier resolution" than
>    to the primary objectives presented in the first paragraph above
>    (also from RFC 3406).
>    In fact, Namespace registration documents seen so far duplicate in
>    the registration template material from the "Community
>    Considerations" that addresses the above bullets.
>    Therefore: Should this specification now allow a combined section
>    "Namespace and Community Considerations" that focuses on the
>    (non-)utility of possible alternate namespace re-use and the
>    *benefits* of an independent new Namespace?
>    ]]


On 3/12/12 4:20 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working Group of the IETF.
> 	Title           : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms
> 	Author(s)       : Alfred Hoenes
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 30
> 	Date            : 2012-03-12
>     Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
>     location-independent, resource identifiers.  To structure and
>     organize their usage, the URN syntax (RFC 2141bis) specifies a
>     hierarchy that divides the set of possible URNs into "URN Namespaces"
>     that can be individually defined and managed.  URN Namespaces in
>     particular serve to map existing identifier systems into the URN
>     system and thereby make available generic, network-based resolution
>     services for the identified documents, artifacts, and other objects
>     (and metadata related to them).
>     To achive these goals, URN Namespaces need to be specified in a
>     comparable manner, and their Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) need to be
>     registered with IANA, so that naming conflicts are avoided and
>     implementers of services can follow a structured approach in support
>     of various namespaces, guided by the registry to the related
>     documents and the particularities of specific namespaces, as
>     described in these Namespace registration documents.
>     This RFC serves as a guideline for authors of URN Namespace
>     definition and registration documents and the process to be followed
>     to register a URN Namespace with IANA.  It describes the essential
>     content of such documents and how they shall be structured to allow
>     readers familar with the scheme to quickly assess the properties of a
>     specific URN Namespace.
>     This document is a companion document to the revised URN Syntax
>     specification, RFC 2141bis; it supersedes and replaces RFC 3406.
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02.txt
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02.txt
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle