Re: [urn] [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice

Larry Masinter <> Tue, 07 January 2020 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F530120220; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:50:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M-p5R1erC1Db; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9DDF12013C; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n59so264243pjb.1; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:50:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=DiIo7NMrRDey82VslgS7RqWDOXU/ANdYEskZ4LE+xj0=; b=WgdE6q9IrMy8uh5DxP9/FsDDSoq/T72KU4is7umg1DViJ31ObwQPtpRVPskknNEF7Y NZcaXMRty5Tc8T1Ot5G8ze6il1LJtW68qvCY3c8Md38yME+iuw/TZ8XSQcJabHAcG8Xy MgHeB3axrUwdfvTu7QauiJ/+S3sdlmka/wi1cRpiXFYsQ29541XhGSY29kYZbEOTKyLF d6mhywywHHhPc9muIAbOGuDbxP0SFjvQtH62+7H005uephMYlWm9ySk3QjDWh2ST8Pg2 odzMWZto7nWDRxPILzhIZ+rUlq5uLg1ZDVBISGrNE21YFPGyKDO643BijwRs6ldLrilX zH5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=DiIo7NMrRDey82VslgS7RqWDOXU/ANdYEskZ4LE+xj0=; b=Updw1r5zGrR87yCXikt6KL9LAr68IQttyM1BxfHCblrbgIj5Rmc3MB3B/xOnAmvNVs IvdZ9V0bApTkrv6dRL9F77I4rx3HAHU6LSDcDPB1nkXJXvijpzW7BcBrXOEPMFxh5CXd GOz1lFwFZze5J4VuKHFSQgsa7rq8EsUdI/QsP+2ZgYlsZf9gTERl9U8v+xHc/SHVfqQU 6gRFSKf+3WA1cSqmlMjxT4sh7PEvke0ZvGET1ROh61AarN1XpFoCi+em9jrEHTk7N50z mj6OdVLYJmb7a+Kvd7C2+QspFOYVLqZsmwSvbObrW1bBxaQFzMGykCsk0ScM2kogoC9Y treQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV30FDSf/EXqJ0c8UFCnT1RfbKkJM/hE55ErjB8nq687E6xT0hr uqMdKx1wRlLKqRCo/7SjN/DnDt1HOUc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwrP37wxzxYz1LLUlfLGi4QxfZPqL6XKJy/rpg9P9VJKkljSnwBKAxlfws0HiZpqMe89qMBgQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b691:: with SMTP id c17mr2370243pls.254.1578441046082; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TVPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n2sm832253pgn.71.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Larry Masinter <>
From: Larry Masinter <>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: "'John C Klensin'" <>, "'Adam Roach'" <>, <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, <>
References: <87E116C31DAF1434C3C3937F@PSB> <> <444B2465A9B73F3D0DE59FFF@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <444B2465A9B73F3D0DE59FFF@PSB>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:50:43 -0800
Message-ID: <002b01d5c5b5$47227290$d56757b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHlIqFVvsYjY3mX8ZSjZXIfuJ5VFQIu5gyCAc3WKQanoPwSoA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 23:50:48 -0000

FWIW, while I agree with the "spirit of  making this BCP guidance, 
rather than rules", I don't see how changing "MAY" to "can"
or a "SHOULD NOT... but instead" to "are encouraged to"
is helpful (substituting terms that are well-defined with
words that seem to be similar in meaning but less well-defined.

The keywords MAY, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT seem to me
to be sufficient "guidance" in a BCP-status document.

Perhaps it would be helpful to add  a kind of applicability statement at the
beginning that these guidelines are intended to apply to
"http:" and "https:" URIs and those  with similar patterns
and SHOULD be considered for others, although they don't
 seem to be relevant for URI-schemes that don't use the generic syntax
with hierarchical paths  (such as "urn:" or "data:" or "mailto")

There is no need to consider the philosophic difference
between a name and a locator.

It's a matter of choosing a syntax for serialization of
a data structure and the implication of ownership
 and origin that comes with some syntactic arrangements
for some implementations.