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

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

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.

Larry
-- 
https://LarryMasinter.net