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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I think most of the cases where the choice is at issue depend on context,
some of which would be hard to generalize.  Things like:

Do you need folks to be able to tell by inspection/parsing what permanence
guarantees you're providing?

Do you need to reuse protocol slots which expect specific forms?

are common questions for the case where a potential non-URN URI expects to
provide similar permanence guarantees.  But once you have the answers the
conversation is a good bit more contextual, and I'm not sure how much value
generalized guidance would be.

Just my general impression, though, and I certainly don't object to someone
writing that up if they feel differently.

regards,

Ted

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 6:40 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 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
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Randy,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 3:18 PM Randy Armstrong (OPC) <
> > [e-mail]> 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.
> >>....
>
>
>