Re: [urn] Transition of 2141bis and 3406bis

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 21 February 2013 05:13 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 8E30621F841D for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:13:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlZ4NOSOcYj2 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EA121E809C for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 573A8403CD; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:20:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <5125ACF2.2010205@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:13:22 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
References: <CAAQiQReC-MXOpR4m3UHNJ0KQxHADfO2a4qduVoQC3qy5hHUSxg@mail.gmail.com> <50D40B6F.9050200@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <50D40B6F.9050200@helsinki.fi>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Transition of 2141bis and 3406bis
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:13:28 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Juha, my apologies for the delayed reply. One question inline about
query components.

On 12/21/12 12:10 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
> 
> On 27.11.2012 22:37, Andrew Newton wrote:

<snip/>

>> It should be noted that these new documents are not the final
>> output of this working group but are simply a new basis for the
>> development of the milestones we must achieve, and they will be
>> based on consensus within this working group and the IETF in
>> accordance with IETF practices.
> 
> I hope the WG will succeed in this task, and wish it would have
> been possible to find consensus on how to use fragment and query.
> Since this did not seem likely, the Finnish ISO TC 46 shadow
> committee decided in its meeting 2012-12-10 to start the
> development of a national URN syntax standard. The standard will be
> bilingual (English and Finnish) and it will be based on the latest
> 2141bis version Alfred Hoenes wrote. Our intention is to keep the
> document downward compatible with whatever the URNbis WG will come
> up with.

Could you explain a bit more clearly the intended usage of query
components in URNs? As far as I have been able to determine, no one
has proposed to include query components in URNs themselves (e.g.,
"urn:isbn:978-951-1-25645-8?param=value"), only in URIs (mostly HTTP
URIs) that encapsulate such a URN for resolution purposes and then
append a query component to the end of the URI (say,
"http://resolver.example.com/urn:isbn:978-951-1-25645-8?param=value").
Does the Finnish ISO TC 46 shadow committee plan to proceed along the
URI path, or do they plan to include query components in URNs themselves?

Could you also explain (perhaps in a separate thread) the intended use
of the fragment identifier, as well as any other discrepancies between
the shadow committee's approach and 2141bis and 3406bis as they stand
today?

Many thanks,

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=5mpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----