Re: [urn] Comments on PWID -05 - now PWID -06

Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk> Mon, 29 April 2019 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <elzi@kb.dk>
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 C60BE12030E for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9A3axbd9ksj for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out12.electric.net (smtp-out12.electric.net [89.104.206.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2B871200A1 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1hL570-0002gL-T5 by out12a.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <elzi@kb.dk>) id 1hL570-0002kn-Uz; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:22 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:22 -0700
Received: from [92.43.124.147] (helo=deliveryscan.hostedsepo.dk) by out12a.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <elzi@kb.dk>) id 1hL570-0002gL-T5; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:22 -0700
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.17.201]) by deliveryscan.hostedsepo.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E191D6F3; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 10.72.17.201 ([10.72.17.201]) by dispatch-outgoing.hostedsepo.dk (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.2-1) with SMTP ID 933; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from out12a.electric.net (smtp-out12.electric.net [89.104.206.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "electric.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by pf1.outpostscan-mta.hostedsepo.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829429F5CF; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 1hL56y-0002Xj-Vj by out12a.electric.net with hostsite:2468467 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <elzi@kb.dk>) id 1hL56z-0002cB-UQ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:21 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:21 -0700
Received: from [92.43.124.46] (helo=pf1.outprescan-mta.hostedsepo.dk) by out12a.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <elzi@kb.dk>) id 1hL56y-0002Xj-Vj; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:10:20 -0700
Received: from post.kb.dk (post-03.kb.dk [130.226.226.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by pf1.outprescan-mta.hostedsepo.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C05D9F4B7; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EXCH-02.kb.dk (exch-02.kb.dk [10.5.0.112]) by post.kb.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE5491ED2; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EXCH-02.kb.dk (10.5.0.112) by EXCH-02.kb.dk (10.5.0.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:19 +0200
Received: from EXCH-02.kb.dk ([fe80::b595:1a1f:5666:b29]) by EXCH-02.kb.dk ([fe80::b595:1a1f:5666:b29%7]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:10:19 +0200
From: Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEouIETDvHJzdA==?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
CC: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>, "L.Svensson@dnb.de" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Thread-Topic: [urn] Comments on PWID -05 - now PWID -06
Thread-Index: AdTQKXi5cerx0k6zRXuaa/w3TPMeTguTXB/A
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:10:19 +0000
Message-ID: <2870fa7971294156b2e2ad240c9584c3@kb.dk>
Accept-Language: da-DK, en-US
Content-Language: da-DK
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.226.229.95]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-IP: 92.43.124.46
X-Env-From: elzi@kb.dk
X-Proto: esmtps
X-Revdns: outprescan-mta.hostedsepo.dk
X-HELO: pf1.outprescan-mta.hostedsepo.dk
X-TLS: TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256
X-Authenticated_ID:
X-PolicySMART: 10573177, 19718497
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s)
X-Outbound-IP: 92.43.124.147
X-Env-From: elzi@kb.dk
X-Proto: esmtps
X-Revdns: deliveryscan.hostedsepo.dk
X-HELO: deliveryscan.hostedsepo.dk
X-TLS: TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256
X-Authenticated_ID:
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/KmVJ_STqjeu-zuG08mHfBGo9AuU>
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on PWID -05 - now PWID -06
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:10:29 -0000

Did any of you have comments to my previous mail?
Is there any action you want me to take in order to get it accepted?
Best Regards, Eld

-----Original Message-----
From: Eld Zierau 
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:29 PM
To: 'Martin J. Dürst' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; 'Dale R. Worley' <worley@ariadne.com>
Cc: 'urn@ietf.org' <urn@ietf.org>; 'L.Svensson@dnb.de' <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Subject: [urn] Comments on PWID -05 - now PWID -06

I have now uploade a new version: draft-pwid-urn-specification-06
 - and thanks again for comments and suggestions

Regarding the suggestion from Martin (included below), I can as a computer scientist certainly see the reasoning as quite obvious. However, my experience with presentation of the PWID is that syntax based on computational reasoning is something that users find illogically, e.g. that the archived-item-id (usually URI) is included in the end of the PWID. I believe that adding a "~" for identifiers that are registered separately is acceptable for such users, but I am also convinced that a "+" before a domain will be something that confuses (non-computer science) users a lot. 
Also, as said in my previous mail, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a case where "~" is the first character in a domain for a web archive. Therefore, it seems that it should not be necessary. 
A minor extra thing is that all existing PWIDs (and tools providing and resolving PWIDs) would not comply, which they would otherwise (none of these use registered identifiers yet only domains and URIs).
In other words: I will be very sorry to add a "+" to domains, and I believe it is not necessary.

The uploaded version  does not include a "+" to domains, - If required, I will of course add it (although sorry to do so)

Please let me know if it acceptable, and I will act accordingly.

Best regards, Eld 


On 2019/03/01 11:31, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Martin J. Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> writes:
>>> [...]  E.g., one could require that any archive-id that is not 
>>> intended to be interpreted as a DNS name to start with one of "-", 
>>> ".", "_", "~".
>>
>> I haven't looked into the details, but in general, I think this is a 
>> bad idea. It is much better to have an explicit distinction than to 
>> rely on some syntax restrictions. Such syntax restrictions may or may 
>> not actually hold in practice. It's very easy to create a DNS name 
>> starting with '-' or '_', for example, even though officially, that's not allowed.
> 
> I may agree with you ... But what do you mean by "an explicit 
> distinction"?  E.g., I would tend to consider "archive-ids starting 
> with '~' are registered archive names, and archive-ids that do not are 
> considered DNS names" to be an "explicit" distinction, but you mean 
> something else.

Well, the explicit distinction would be "if it starts with '~', what follows is a registered archive name, and if it starts with '+', what follows is a DNS name" or some such. This would not exclude any leading characters in either archive names or DNS names.

Regards,   Martin.

> Or maybe the right question is, What do you propose as an alternative?