[urn] Submission of "URN Namespace for Metaverse Standards Forum Resources"

Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> Fri, 22 December 2023 12:36 UTC

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:36:12 +0000
From: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
To: urn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20231222123612.GB4714@openfortress.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: urn@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/KTAlfawf9hT877iD-Lr6PcqwQg8>
Subject: [urn] Submission of "URN Namespace for Metaverse Standards Forum Resources"
Precedence: list

Hello,

There's just been a request to assign a URN namespace for things defined by Metaverse.

In my humble understanding of the URN namespace, it is intended to pin down specifications under names, with the intent of interoperability of independent implementations.  It is not primarily intended as a system of delegation for URI namespace allocation.

Ref: RFC 8141, Section 6.2, "registrants SHOULD provide a stable specification documenting the URN namespace definition".

Based on this, it seems unfit for the URN space to assign sub-names for something as broad and unspecific as "resources published by" any party.  Exceptions may exist for parties that can forward definitions to an existing naming/numbering system, such as the ISBN or the DOI numbering system, if the target organisation happens to be a standards organisation.

Constructive alternatives to a name scope delegation could be a mixture of
(1) to separately register URN forms for specific formats
(2) since this appears to be specific to one or a few domain names, to use the tag: URI defined in RFC 4151 or perhaps a URL format
(3) use the OID branch for Private Enteriprise Numbers, and possibly use urn:oid: as per RFC 3061.


I hope this is helpful.


Best wishes,
  -Rick

[urn] Submission of "URN Namespace for Metaverse … Rick van Rein
Re: [urn] Submission of "URN Namespace for Metave… worley