IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 April 2014 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 EEB471A0220; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 nS36HPD3lWxm; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762C41A021A; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MhNk6-1WMyvB3Pvu-00MYch; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:59 +0200
Message-ID: <534FFB98.5040607@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:40 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.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> <CAK3OfOjTtcsuu2DU7N5pWaUAS2weemV7oajHeT24fQfbXbjzcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjTtcsuu2DU7N5pWaUAS2weemV7oajHeT24fQfbXbjzcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:37SK7/gynTTWpRrJZ8iczqp7/37gZXVaQWU8ehIqDwqT2PPjhx+ K9cK/mO0e7GD42CXIP979+N+YrTPotMSeYwtvVNoOeBsaZb1HBI+WZYWy6Z7nm8V6i5O5TS /Q1tuzNkwW+C4kF15EZcaDmdrpW74Po8wdgAeu7nP8yLTu47KePTDbHYWy9rsWYpcLvq5xB HOXhc3xNJ81Djxq61z2+A==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/6ooNheJ9AIgD1eKbP2wlOGrQyBs
Cc: urn@ietf.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, 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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:05:11 -0000

On 2014-04-17 17:42, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-16 20:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> The real difference is that a URL must contains a DNS name and a URN
>>> probably does not.
>>> ...
>>
>> Not true. It doesn't need to be a DNS name.
>
> The difference is blurry, but I like to think of it as: a URN is just
> a name and there needn't even be a mechanism to resolve one to a
> resource -- heck, there needn't even be a resource.  Whereas a URL is

If "it" has a URN then "it" is a resource. By definition.

> a name that indicates how to resolve it in order to locate a resource;
> the location part might not -need not- be stable.

But it's good as it is.

A URL is a locator which might be a stable name as well.

A URN is a name that may act as a locator later on.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email