Re: [urn] Comments/answers to reasons for changes in PWID URN version 4

Dear Eld,

*  'precision-spec' values are not case sensitive (i.e.  "PAGE" /
         "PART" / "PaGe" / ... are valid values as well.)

On Monday, January 21, 2019 2:15 PM, Eld Zierau [mailto:elzi@kb.dk] wrote:

> Is there any particular area you  think needs approvement?

Having re-read the I-D, I'd say that there are two areas still unclear to me:
1) The syntax specification says 
*  'precision-spec' values are not case sensitive (i.e.  "PAGE" /
         "PART" / "PaGe" / ... are valid values as well.)
It says nothing about the other parts so I guess that case sensitiveness defaults to the specification in RFC 8141 §3 [1] which says that all parts of URNs are case sensitive except for the string "urn" and the NID. It would be helpful, though, if that was made explicit (including a reference to RFC 8141 §3).

2) The document refers to a (proposed) registry of archive names without giving any particulars of where this will be set up and who will manage it. If you say that there currently is no information about that, that's fine, otherwise it would be helpful to get more information on that (especially if it's going to be operated by IANA).

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8141#section-3.1

Best,

Lars

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:47 PM
> To: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>; Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>
> Cc: urn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Re: [urn] Comments/answers to reasons for changes in PWID URN
> version 4 - diff version 3 and 4
> 
> Apologies for not commenting on this draft until now...
> 
> Version 4 of PWID has matured considerably compared to version 3 and I think it
> needs at the most one or two more iterations until it's ready for registration.
> 
> I find the discussion about an IANA registry for names of web archives very
> interesting and would support the creation of such a registry. The number of such
> archives will probably be of manageable size (about the same size as the number of
> national libraries...).
> 
> I also have a number of minor editorial issues but would wait with those until the
> contents of the draft are more stable.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lars
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: urn [mailto:urn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 2:02 AM
> > To: Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>
> > Cc: urn@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [urn] Comments/answers to reasons for
> > changes in PWID URN version 4 - diff version 3 and 4
> >
> > Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk> writes:
> > > Here is the promised Word file with differences between version 3
> > > and 4
> >
> > > [2:application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.do
> > > cument
> > Show Save:PWID_from_V3_to_V4.docx (81kB)]
> >
> > Why not just give the URL to the datatracker's history page for the I-D:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pwid-urn-specification/history/
> > and the URL for the diff between v3 and v4, in the format that
> > basically everybody in the IETF is familiar with:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-pwid-urn-specification-03&url2
> > =draft-pwid-
> > urn-specification-04
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > urn mailing list
> > urn@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

Re: [urn] Comments/answers to reasons for changes in PWID URN version 4 - diff version 3 and 4