Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 03 July 2012 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 6BCEA11E8109 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 y2IxEbAA10TT for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7905611E80BE for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B9854005A; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:33:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FF344A9.9090501@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:14:49 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <234FA8E3-C00D-4DA9-AD6C-41A3AC2548E4@hxr.us> <4FEBF708.9030604@helsinki.fi> <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF246915EE@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> <4FEC2B8C.4070604@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FEC2B8C.4070604@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:14:43 -0000

On 6/28/12 4:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-06-28 11:42, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>> Juha wrote:
>>
>>> But
>>> I hope that RFC2141bis will say at least that fragments are not part of
>>> the NSS but they can be used in those namespaces which specifically
>>> allow that.
>>
>> I'll second that RFC 2141bis says that fragment identifiers are
>> allowed in URNs but that they are not part of the NSS. Further, RFCs
>> for new namespaces must specify if they allow the use of fragment
>> identifiers or not but I guess that is something for RFC 3406bis.
> 
> No.
> 
> Namespace specifications define the namespace-specific part; nothing
> else. Fragment syntax and semantics are defined by RFC 3986.
> 
> A spec *can* point out that the URN does not identify something from
> which a payload + media type can be retrieved, in which fragment
> identifiers are not applicable. But that's different from disallowing them.

Julian, by "spec" here do you mean a specification for a particular
namespace identifier? (And would one result be that each NID spec would
need to specify whether URNs issued within that NID identify entities
from which a payload + media type can be retrieved?)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/