Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request

worley@ariadne.com Thu, 21 January 2021 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 2E62D3A172C for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:08:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 Ysb-noVog2gn for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (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 746453A1725 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 2RGnlLaCiYJ0u2RGvlTwvg; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:08:39 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1611202119; bh=M4AI4wvJwUmascM+qdoiqtJkulbYhg4GFCF2Fovm5ks=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=CVZ27Nk8qgI3bnsUx1H2IbXQT3fGDYwYLhzUTH0VAwe3qkR0BJpevQ17nbuE1vXSf bTW5egnKanurSLSm+pzNaFjEjUWryRxJsoixnqcSSkgjIFs2H22EeGcqp3s0B4sLwA fHCBS55bcTooqJriT7I7z/+9Gcyz8AmFR/d5iICsUD/9sfhzI98rWKeBHTxULVSwHb WG/TLi3oGnWtzRI2YWMIAEvn33ViEMKLDjk2pdmA1VlN4/4NZGNAjmR3qd7ahtX+NY iFenKXOKvxU8FuhrUlwV/QRRQtCmr1wYjIq7Y97zpie112wk2rPty1ZldyuW49mPml ecDz018/dA0wg==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id 2RGalwHWH21iE2RGnlKwCo; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:08:33 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 10L48G30027021; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:08:16 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 10L48FlW027018; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:08:15 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Paul Jessop <paul@countyanalytics.com>
Cc: juha.hakala@helsinki.fi, llannom@cnri.reston.va.us, urn@ietf.org, john@jck.com, jonathanmtclark@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <A4354843-F680-44A6-AE49-11FFA28C3462@countyanalytics.com> (paul@countyanalytics.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:08:14 -0500
Message-ID: <87ft2vdj9t.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/OkUsBRV07LWYXjZiGpvX2IDu2jg>
Subject: Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:08:42 -0000

This does, of course, address my concerns, and I withdraw them.  But the
context on my part is probably worth explaining.

Paul Jessop <paul@countyanalytics.com> writes:
> It is frustrating that someone else's provisional URI registration
> continues to create confusion.

Properly, you should use "scheme" here rather than "URI".  "URI" is a
very general universe of identifiers, and "URNs" are a subset of them.
So any "namespace" of URNs is perforce a set of URIs as well.

> To be clear, the intent of The DOI Foundation is to address the
> technical issues that have been raised here (which are confident we
> can do) and continue the URN namespace request.

OK, that was the point that was not clear to me, that the namespace
registration is sponsored by the DOI Foundation.

There was another source of confusion that DOIs as I've seen them
(generally in academic papers and references thereto) are usually
written in a form that *look* like URIs and I reflexively assumed that
DOIs were defined to be compatible with URI syntax, thus allowing "doi"
to be a URI scheme directly -- and that this was intended by the
Foundation.  But IIRC from this discussion, the character set in DOIs is
not limited to the URI character set, so even though all of the ones
I've seen look like URIs, they aren't.

Dale