Re: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

I've asked IANA to register this namespace and will report back when 
that task has been completed.

Peter

On 11/14/22 9:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Excellent, thank you. Sorry to have missed your updated version. I will 
> move forward on this with IANA.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 11/14/22 4:12 AM, Miguel Angel Reina Ortega wrote:
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> I think that was the old RFC draft. I sent a new one that I think it 
>> solves all the issues you commented on.
>>
>> I am attaching them again.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Miguel Angel Reina Ortega – Testing Expert
>> Centre for Testing and Interoperability (CTI)
>> ETSI ● www.etsi.org ● [e-mail]
>> Phone: [phone] ● Mobile: [phone]
>>
>> This email may contain confidential information and is intended for
>> the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful.
>> If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender
>> immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
>> Thank you for your co-operation.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: 08 November 2022 21:50
>> To: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega <[e-mail]>; 
>> Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>; Dale R. Worley 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>
>> Dear Miguel,
>>
>> Thanks for your note and my apologies about the delays you have 
>> experienced.
>>
>> I've just now looked at the expired Internet-Draft
>> (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-fujimoto-urn-onem2m-01.txt) and 
>> I have a few comments.
>>
>> 1. The completed registration template follows RFC 2141, not RFC 8141.
>> It should be updated to conform to RFC 8141 (see Appendix A for the 
>> new template).
>>
>> 2. https://www.onem2m.org/urn results in a 404 error.
>>
>> 3. Would it be possible to briefly clarify what is meant by "name 
>> models"?
>>
>> Once you have updated the Internet-Draft or just the template (because 
>> publication of an Internet-Draft or RFC is not required for 
>> registration of a URN namespace identifier), I will make sure that we 
>> complete the registration with IANA in a timely manner.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 11/4/22 2:05 AM, Miguel Angel Reina Ortega wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> It's been a while now from this registration request, and I would 
>>> like to know the status of it as it appears not to be registered yet 
>>> (I cannot see it in 
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml)
>>>
>>> Please, could you let me know about that? Or if anything else need to 
>>> be done from my side?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Cordialement.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Miguel Angel Reina Ortega – Testing Expert Centre for Testing and
>>> Interoperability (CTI) ETSI ? www.etsi.org ?
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Phone: [phone] ? Mobile: [phone]
>>>
>>> This email may contain confidential information and is intended for
>>> the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful.
>>> If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender
>>> immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
>>> Thank you for your co-operation.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega
>>> Sent: 02 March 2022 18:17
>>> To: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>; Dale R. Worley
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: RE: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>>
>>> Dear Juha,
>>>
>>> Thanks again so much for your comments. After discussion with oneM2M 
>>> delegates, q-component seems to be the most appropriate in our case. 
>>> We will accordingly update the syntax in case either several 
>>> parameters or only one can be used.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Miguel Angel Reina Ortega – Testing Expert Centre for Testing and
>>> Interoperability (CTI) ETSI ? www.etsi.org ?
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Phone: [phone] ? Mobile: [phone]
>>>
>>> This email may contain confidential information and is intended for 
>>> the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful.
>>> If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender 
>>> immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
>>> Thank you for your co-operation.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: 02 March 2022 13:27
>>> To: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega <[e-mail]>; Dale
>>> R. Worley <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: VS: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>>
>>> Dear Miguel,
>>>
>>> see comments below.
>>>
>>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>>> Lähettäjä: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Lähetetty: perjantai 25. helmikuuta 2022 18.55
>>> Vastaanottaja: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>; Dale R.
>>> Worley <[e-mail]>
>>> Kopio: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Aihe: RE: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>>
>>> Dear Juha,
>>>
>>> I have discussed the issues with the oneM2M delegates and we have 
>>> updated the oneM2M URN namespace with the following:
>>>
>>> - General rule to limit NSS-restoftree to printable ASCII characters, 
>>> as you proposed.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> - parameters for the MGMT URN namespace will be part of the 
>>> q-component, so starting with "?=" as should not be part of the URN 
>>> resolution. Please, advise if that's correct.
>>>
>>> I suggested r-component, but using the q-component (or even the 
>>> f-component) should be ok as well since your URNs will not be 
>>> actionable. The choice between these options is yours; what is 
>>> important is that the parameter can be separated from the nss string.
>>>
>>> Compared with the other two options, f-component has the benefit that 
>>> if against all odds at least some of the oneM2M URN should be made 
>>> actionable in the future, both q-component and r-component will be 
>>> available for that purpose.
>>>
>>> With q-component your URN syntax would then be
>>>
>>> urn:onem2m:<nss-root>:<nss-restoftree>?=<parameters>
>>>
>>> So for instance urn:onem2m:mgmt:nwkType:lora?=parameter1&parameter2
>>>
>>> If it is OK to have more than one parameter, you may want to specify 
>>> the character separating them (for instance, &). An easier solution 
>>> is to allow just one parameter at the time.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Juha
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Miguel Angel Reina Ortega - Testing Expert Centre for Testing and
>>> Interoperability (CTI) ETSI ? www.etsi.org ?
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Phone: [phone] ? Mobile: [phone]
>>>
>>> This email may contain confidential information and is intended for 
>>> the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful.
>>> If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender 
>>> immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
>>> Thank you for your co-operation.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: 23 February 2022 08:57
>>> To: Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]>; Miguel Angel Reina Ortega
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: VS: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>>> Lähettäjä: urn <[e-mail]> Puolesta Dale R. Worley
>>> Lähetetty: keskiviikko 23. helmikuuta 2022 4.28
>>> Vastaanottaja: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega
>>> <MiguelAngel.ReinaOrtega=[e-mail]>
>>> Kopio: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Aihe: Re: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration
>>>
>>> As ETSI is a recognized standards body, we should fast-track this.
>>>
>>> + 1.
>>>
>>> Also, there's little specific information to review.
>>>
>>> Subtree registration page
>>>
>>> https://wiki.onem2m.org/index.php?title=OneM2M_URN_Namespace
>>>
>>> provides additional information about oneM2M URNs, but there are some 
>>> gaps.
>>>
>>> Namespace specific strings will consist of two parts:
>>>
>>> <nss-root>:<nss-restoftree>
>>>
>>> Character set of nss-root is specified as a-z, A-Z, 0-9, but nothing 
>>> is said about the character set of nss-restoftree. I suppose you 
>>> could limit it to printable ASCII characters, in order to eliminate 
>>> the impact of Unicode confusables.
>>>
>>>    Within nss-root MGMT, the nss-restoftree will have the following 
>>> structure:
>>>
>>> urn:onem2m:mgmt.:nwkType:<identifier>:[<parameters>]
>>>
>>> I suppose the dot after mgmt is an error. If so, we get URNs like:
>>>
>>> urn:onem2m:mgmt:nwkType:lora or
>>> urn:onem2m:mgmt:nwkType:ansi_c_12:parameter
>>>
>>> Within nss-restoftree colon has two different roles in the mgmt 
>>> sub-namespace. It separates both nwkType from identifier and 
>>> identifier from parameter (if any). This might create confusion 
>>> regarding the role of the parameter, since nothing in the URN syntax 
>>> says that the parameter is not part of the identifier. And if in the 
>>> future you need to sub-divide nwkType, it might no longer be obvious 
>>> for someone who does not know the syntax already where the identifier 
>>> is and whether there is a parameter.
>>>
>>> Since onem2m parameters will not have a role in identification, you 
>>> might be better off including them as URN R-components. Since your 
>>> URNs will not be resolved, this should not be problematic in any way.
>>>
>>> URN namespace registrations do not need to be RFCs. An RFC can be 
>>> provided if the identifier system has not been specified elsewhere, 
>>> and it is considered useful to create an RFC for this purpose (see 
>>> e.g. RFC 8458; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8458) In 
>>> your case, I do not think that RFC is required or even justified. It 
>>> will be easier both for you and IETF if you send us just a template 
>>> as specified in RFC 8141. All registrations published as such 
>>> templates are listed at 
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml.
>>>
>>> ETSI has already made one namespace registration as a template, 
>>> available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-formal/etsi.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Juha
>>>
>>>
>>> I would recommend that the registration template specify how the NSSs 
>>> are to be compared, although looking at RFC 8141, it doesn't seem to 
>>> be required.  (It used to be that specifying the comparison rule was 
>>> important.)  I suspect that oneM2M intends to use case-sensitive 
>>> comparison and largely assign NSSs in a single case.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> urn mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> urn mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>>
>