Re: [urn] corporate URN namespaces

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

Hi John, thanks for sharing your perspective. Comments inline.

On 1/30/24 8:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> I wonder whether we could borrow a note from some very early
> IANA registration policies and allow third-party registrations,
> e.g., allow you or someone else who notices one of these things
> to record the usage in the database as a third-party
> registration.  If one of our primary goals for having the
> registry is to avoid inadvertent name conflicts, then knowing
> that (using your examples) LinkedIn is using "li" for a
> namespace and Amazon is using "rtn", and both are using them on
> the public Internet (embedded or not), there would seem to be a
> public interest in having those names registered. 

RFC 8141 states:

    This document rests on two key assumptions:

    1.  Assignment of a URN is a managed process.

    2.  The space of URN namespaces is itself managed.

One thing I'm uncomfortable with here - not with your proposal but with 
the underlying situation - is the fact that if at some level we accept 
unregistered URN namespaces, then we're not living up to assumption #2.

Overall I'd say we have done a decent job of managing the space of URN 
namespaces: the vast majority of SDOs and other projects we've engaged 
with have worked in good faith to define their usage of URNs, and for 
the most part this discussion list has led to improved transparency 
regarding URN usage on the Internet. (To be clear, we've had a few 
failures along the way, e.g. namespaces we didn't get registered because 
the registrants ran out of energy or patience with the review team.)

It seems less than ideal to allow third-party registrations that are 
mere placeholders so that we can avoid conflicts. Indeed, those don't 
feel like *registrations* at all, in the sense of fulfilling our 
responsibility to manage the space of URN namespaces. (Furthermore, it 
feels disrespectful toward everyone who has properly registered their 
namespaces.)

I'm not completely opposed to what you suggest, but I'm not completely 
happy with it, either.

Peter