Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03
Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Tue, 16 October 2012 18:49 UTC
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
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 40A0D21F87EC for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FB_NO_MORE_ADS=1.174, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8IHmpf47tmff for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE8021F86AA for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA060493249; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:30 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id UAA17444; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:28 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "16, " 2012 "11:10:42" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:49:49 -0000
URNbis folks, eventually, the long expected new version of the rfc2141bis draft is available from the Internet-Draft archives. Speaking as the draft editor: This draft version incorporates the changes proposed on my "A way forward ..." proposal posted to this list on 5 July and archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01776.html, taking into account the feedback received for this (in so far as it related directly to this draft), and it contains many additional changes based on an evaluation of all on-list and off-list comments received since the publication of the -02 version. For a detailed summary of changes, please see below. Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related comments. The plan is to issue one additional draft version next month before proceeding to WG Last Call for it. My highest priority for the next days is bringing out the pending updates to the other WG documents as well; so please admit that I'll likely still have to defer any discussion followup until this task is completed. The aligned -03 version of the rfc3406bis draft will be posted next, and it's proactively already referenced in the -03 version of the rfc2141bis draft -- so please don't complain about that temporary mis-ref. On 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax > Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes > Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03.txt > Pages : 36 Note: Please discount for 3 pg. boilerplate & ToC, almost 3 pg. of References, and almost 6 pages of change History. :-) > Date : 2012-10-16 > > Abstract: > Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, > location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as > the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets > forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into > "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new > namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are > presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how > to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141. > > The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration > documents are set forth in a companion document, RFC 3406bis > (BCP 66). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > This new draft version contains the following incremental change summary as an Appendix, amended with rationale for some non-changes: -------- snip -------- D.7. Changes from WG Draft -02 to WG Draft -03 Added text in s1.1 to reflect a comment from SM on other, legacy interpretations of "URN". Added note in old s1.2 to reflect importance of the name binding established by a URN (derived from list discussion on other topic, Keith Moore et al.). However, (despite comments from SM and PSA) preserved excerpts there to keep document self-contained and avoid normative down-references (as discussed during WG chartering process and pointed out in the third para of old s1.3). Doing so should also help to avoid another future recurrence of the discussion on these topics that has consumed a lot of resources unnecessarily during the WG formation process. Swapped s1.2 and s1.3 (note from SM); however, for logical reasons, motivation (part of s1.1) needs to stay in the text before the objectives derived thereof (now s1.2). Material on query part enhanced (new subsection 2.3); structure of query part formally specified with a rather liberal syntax (could be more restrictive, if WG prefers); IANA registry of URN query keywords established, with two initial entries for the global scope "s" and "c" keywords now specified in s2.3.1 and s2.3.2. To avoid further confusion (as seen on the list discussion), this I-D uses the term "fragment" only for the trailing component in the Generic URI Syntax and the semantics associated with it in RFC 3986; otherwise this I-D talks about "components" of structured resources. Material on fragment part heavily revised and stripped down, put in new subsection 2.4. New text is intended to reflect least common denominator of list discussion; i.e., mostly just enable usage by specific URN Namespace and otherwise point to RFC 3986 and RFC 3406bis. Namespace designers now have three options to design-in component resource designation (if warranted for the namespace), whichever is the best fit for their underlying identifier system: (1) media- specific designation using fragment part, (2) media-independent, abstract designation using query part (to be dealt with by resolution system, not resolution client), and (3) media-independent designation via assignment of distinct NSSs to component resources. (That is being elaborated upon to a greater extent in the -03 version of the rfc3406bis I-D.) Added text to percent-encoding considerations (Bengt Neiss' concerns). Amended text on support of existing identifier systems (s3), based on various comments received. Revised part of text in s5 and s6 on lexical/functional equivalence to reflect the new specification for query and fragment (new s2.3, s2.4) and to address several comments received; changed s5.1 accordingly. In spite of the challenges raised by serious evidence of improper management practices for the ISBN system and hence the URN:ISBN Namespace (Lars Svensson), the I-D still contains one (hypothetical) example based on URN:ISBN; this is being thought acceptable because it is in the tradition of earlier documents and we can expect that every potential reader of the memo will have an understanding what ISBNs are for (or should be). Modified title of s7.1 to avoid clash with new s9.1. Added IANA Considerations for "URN Query Parameters" registries (s9.2). Acknowledgements expanded. Amended Appendix A with text regarding <fragment> usage. Filled in details in Appendix D.1; added this Appendix D.7. Former Appendix E (guide to IETF document repositories) and pointer to it removed (comment from SM). Multiple editorial enhancements and fixes. -------- snip -------- Also, the changes since RFC 2141 are now summed up in an Appendix of the draft as follows: -------- snip -------- D.1. Essential Changes from RFC 2141 Expanded Introduction to cover background material frequently requested by interested parties not well acquainted with RFCs and past/present work in the IETF, in particular prospective URN Namespace stakeholders and applicants for URN Namespace registrations. The material included also serves to avoid normative downrefs to legacy RFCs that are very unlikely to be progressed on the Standards Track in the foreseeable future. Document references updated and split; Normative References now only to Full Internet Standards to allow for future progress of this memo on the IETF Standards Track. Formal syntax now specified using ABNF (STD 68), using productions from Generic URI Syntax (STD 66) and STD 68. NID Syntax slightly more restrictive than in RFC 2141 (compatible with existing and in-progress NID registrations). NSS syntax now allows "&" and "~" to align URN syntax with generic <pchar> rule from STD 66; an ambiguity in the formal rules and incompatibilities between the formal rules and the prose description in RFC 2141 have been straightened out ("%" no more allowed outside percent-encoding triples, other <reserved> characters no more admitted by formal syntax rules). Use of query and fragment part with URNs now specified, mostly by reference to STD 66. Syntactical pattern for query part defined; IANA registry for query keywords in URN references established. This document also performs the outstanding formal registration of the 'urn' URI scheme. Supplemental material in Appendices documents considerations and decisions made in the development of this memo. -------- snip -------- Best regards, Alfred.
- [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-ur… internet-drafts
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… SM
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Peter Saint-Andre