IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4B31A0243; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 LUmRugSt5o0Y; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D65C1A0241; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c6so574624lan.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dARVjCWcOMcZNsT0Y9FPjmzoCccWbcfY9NeCseIuzsA=; b=Hg4G8m3APUYJFnUyUCAsuzc8XhpIqg394LULdEE1nGPCndFhnbInq0ArvXWMaeqVdA kZcy1Wf3UKSkq26ng5rZnIv5Fq4yvdO4G2n6/irSztRpMyFA+zsbgAOxP9RPAr1GCWDG w9aK2FGsZnk75uULs8fh3aAiW8tqWhg53+KQsozfZ9yGfg672vDv5x10vhaht7e/+Xu1 +RAoltYrccZyrQkUQZLRk2mmaxu7Iycni+YG2xn45+i6b6JnIFlRW3uoBoaXgA9BwIET 1AjWvSRKDSdKGEfJv+FJ2UBMNh3XvDUwd9+NAua+QDa5DPQMvmcw/K4yKZ0/GF5JOWO9 3afQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.120.168 with SMTP id ld8mr10659911lab.12.1397752252949; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.234.229 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOh_aGr8CPpK+1x3_MgAGF9khMB4sxXoPGBD6GAjyUGrEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+Lwia99RdyO4RFScSwCaVHLsr_BRzmXK18eUoxGFti79Vog@mail.gmail.com> <001976FFC9FE8FFCAA2E7990@JCK-EEE10> <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <534FE7BC.4070002@gmx.de> <CAMm+Lwjr1dmGoKRVRvmX1fxettWEyx6sm88Ry4Ri4fzJf0ZA8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOh_aGr8CPpK+1x3_MgAGF9khMB4sxXoPGBD6GAjyUGrEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:30:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwh+RV8FfaM+R8UA9--JHkb7V2gnj0N1ZCQ_RL6LMhcoAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/Tdmf93sD8QDNaPJV5y7Q2ySMikY
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:31:32 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, urn@ietf.org, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:31:03 -0000

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-16 20:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>> The real difference is that a URL must contains a DNS name and a URN
>>>> probably does not.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Not true. It doesn't need to be a DNS name.
>>
>> Why bother with anything else? Its all legacy now or going to be soon
>> enough. X.500 has never been a viable directory. Telephone numbers are
>> the only other widespread locator.
>
> With the caveat that "DNS name" need not be the same as a hostname
> (FQDN).  It might be a domainname for use as starting point for
> service location.
>
> Can we use URLs for geocaching?  For locating resources on satellites?  ..

We can certainly use URIs. The issue here is whether we claim it has
'name like' semantics or 'locator like'.

Since most of the people who talk about names don't seem to be
familiar with the relevant literature, I think the best approach is to
limit URLs to locators where we specify the naming infrastructure
(DNS, IP, hosts.txt) . That is a distinction we can agree on.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email