[urn] Re: Proposing a way forward re: GLUE and "third-party" registration

[[e-mail]]

Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> writes:
> Although I'm always happy to talk with the IESG, I'm not sure that what 
> you propose is the best way to proceed. Does is make good sense for the 
> IESG to weigh in with a seemingly definitive interpretation of RFC 8141, 
> or would it make more sense to pursue clarification of that Proposed 
> Standard through the regular channels (i.e., through an RFC that updates 
> RFC 8141)? Doing work like this "on the side" via the SPICE WG feels odd 
> to me.

I expect that the IESG would -- indeed, must, in order for this I-D to
advance -- decide what WG is going to make a "definitive interpretation"
or (effectively the same thing) update of RFC 8141.  Having Spice do it
also seems odd to me, but if the IESG thinks that's OK, it's not my
place to object.  But it strikes me as likely that if the IESG thinks an
update to RFC 8141 to support third-party registrations is plausible,
they're likely to spin up a URN-focused WG to do so.

>> Of course, this is very "heavy-weight" from the point of view of the
>> authors of the I-D and the Spice WG generally, but given that the I-D is
>> already being held up in the IESG, this is probably the fastest way
>> forward that can be achieved -- it will put all the issues in front of
>> the IESG together, and likely produce clear guidance for the DE
>> committee.
>
> Personally I'd rather get it right than get it done quickly.

My estimation is that it won't be possible to get this URN concept done
quickly in any way that isn't also getting it done right, given that the
mess is already in the IESG's lap.

> However, if 
> folks are in a hurry then I think we already have a proposed solution: 
> define a `glue` URI scheme.

True, although I have been considering that alternative to be
"different" from the current I-D, since the matter would be out of our
hands.  Although of course that approach could still be done by editing
draft-ietf-spice-glue-id-07.

Another alternative approach is to look at the field in the protocol
into which the GLUE URNs are now intended to be put, and attach to it a
secondary field "type of identifier", which could specify "gln", "lei",
"duns", "pen", etc. and change the main field to hold the unadorned
gln/lei/duns/pen identifier.

Dale