IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 22 December 2011 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF96021F8B9A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYUb8m4hqtyS for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:21:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F2A6B21F8B8F for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2011 13:21:33 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 22 Dec 2011 14:21:33 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19HlQYcIJZHcdhTlxqrNmSUy6Jy+axVuMDcs0Sk6U ltoWREvcD1tdl3
Message-ID: <4EF32EDB.6040807@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:21:31 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
References: <201110312251.XAA11909@TR-Sys.de> <4EC4DF6D.7070209@helsinki.fi> <4EEBB9D9.3060505@stpeter.im> <4EF32B68.2070408@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4EF32B68.2070408@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <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, 22 Dec 2011 13:21:35 -0000

On 2011-12-22 14:06, Juha Hakala wrote:
> ...

Here's a high level comment: I think that adding requirements on 
resolution services is a step into the wrong direction. In particular, 
it's totally OK that urn:uuids are not resolvable, because that's by design.

Do you want to force identifiers like these into different URI schemes? Why?

Also, once you start to focus too much on resolution then you'll 
inevitably get people asking why you don't start with a scheme that 
already is resolvable in the first place. In the end, stability of URIs 
depends mainly on those who mint them, not on the actual notation.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email