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

Keith Moore <> Thu, 16 August 2012 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C795A21F84B8 for <>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P2d8-FQ2wOu8 for <>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E818921F84B6 for <>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa []) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F04020C80 for <>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:50:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:50:16 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=1IqHVWtM1A+dyONrb77ECF /h5XE=; b=KXrjN04RE/5v5vQBQDbmVWT13Jm370G9dpNFWvxkQzrHbFpmeY4R0x Crryts9pqcpnfoyO7Y6eWyJfYwK3dmr4paFPROYYOi39qhkEvRavvgSM42xf6MmW OQNR9ujfUXfue45BduB52t6YV6xmX0iPvKAS2jwvlA+086woacMS0=
X-Sasl-enc: 4D0JAaTokxttQKoqyyd6DoDCkUrWfmVmqxt3vVZcpNbu 1345117815
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 878B88E01F4 for <>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:50:12 -0400
From: Keith Moore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:50:17 -0000

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.

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.