IETF Logo Mail Archive

[urn] How to tell the difference (was: Re: URI Scheme with Complex Equality Rules)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 26 August 2022 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 C5CC6C14F72A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 10:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4u5qaq0Lm9KI for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 10:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21385C14F719 for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 10:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1oRdKA-0007BL-Ql; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:40:54 -0400
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:40:49 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: urn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DF50255DFCF385789EB9451E@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAvRv4845YOVHsKY6LDo5CFC0KdL=j3WF334v==nj4oTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <SJ0PR08MB8288507205BE2CD811F5D19BFA759@SJ0PR08MB8288.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMBbeHRn+pQEO4v90d0ifCaxEZW7FU2QRUtgD8oiuD0JKg@mail.gmail.c om> <SJ0PR08MB82881C9645C9F215BBB5CB03FA759@SJ0PR08MB8288.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMAvRv4845YOVHsKY6LDo5CFC0KdL=j3WF334v==nj4oTQ@mail.gmail.c om>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/BFMD8RiF4L3gNbY-UVmXCUrjM9Q>
Subject: [urn] How to tell the difference (was: Re: URI Scheme with Complex Equality Rules)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:40:57 -0000

Ted,

Reading through this discussion caused me to realize that, while
there are some obvious cases in both directions, there are many
situations in which the choice between a new URN NID and a new
URI scheme is not obvious. You've obviously got some intuition
about that.  So do I and, while I assume ours are very similar,
I am guessing there are edge cases on which we might not
completely agree. Should we be trying to get some guidance on
the subject together and written down?   Or is that likely to be
hard enough that we are better off with case-by-case analyses
and advice?

best,
   john


--On Friday, August 26, 2022 17:58 +0100 Ted Hardie
<ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Randy,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 3:18 PM Randy Armstrong (OPC) <
> randy.armstrong@opcfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> 
>> I was thinking of a URI scheme instead of a URN NID, however,
>> it appears URI scheme requires that we create RFC which is a
>> much more cumbersome process.
>>....

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email