Re: [urn] Moving ahead with draft-spinosa-urn-lex

["Svensson, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

Fine with me, too.

Best,

Lars

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hakala, Juha E [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 6:41 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>; Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]>; Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>; Svensson, Lars
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Moving ahead with draft-spinosa-urn-lex
> 
> Hello,
> 
> no objections from me either.
> 
> Juha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
> Sent: keskiviikko 2. toukokuuta 2018 6.25
> To: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>; Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Hakala,
> Juha E <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Moving ahead with draft-spinosa-urn-lex
> 
> No objections here!
> 
> On 4/30/18 11:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Thanks for this, Dale: this seems like a reasonable way forward to me,
> > at this time.
> > Do others agree?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     My apologies for not working on this earlier.
> >
> >     The current draft of "urn-lex" is draft-spinosa-urn-lex-12.  People have
> >     criticized its proposed URN system in many ways, but it seems to me that
> >     most of the criticisms are "bibliographic", they concern good ways to
> >     create identifiers for written works.  As such, the IETF is not a good
> >     forum for correcting most of those problems.
> >
> >     My proposal is that we implement "rough consensus and running code" --
> >     obtain a usable registration of the "lex" URN namespace so that the
> >     authors and ITTIG can put the "lex" URNs into practice.  The process of
> >     using the URNs will educate the authors regarding the correct resolution
> >     of the various problems, and will likely cause them to later submit a
> >     revised registration.
> >
> >     That is, the registration we create at this time will be understood to
> >     be experimental in nature.
> >
> >     In order to be suitable as an "experimental" registration, there are a
> >     few problems that must be resolved:
> >
> >     1. The URN syntax must conform to the generic URN syntax.
> >
> >     2. The requirements of uniqueness and persistence must be met.  (That
> >     is, any URN designates at most one resource, and the resource that it
> >     designates must not change over time.  However, it is permissible to
> >     have multiple URNs designate the same resource.)
> >
> >     3. The process or authority that assigns each URN must be well-defined.
> >
> >     Item 1 is taken care of, in that the syntax in -12 conforms (as far as I
> >     can tell) to the URN syntax in RFC 8141.
> >
> >     Item 2 is the responsibility of the Jurisdictional Registrars, in the
> >     same way that the naming authorities of many other URN namespaces are
> >     responsible for uniqueness and persistence.
> >
> >     Item 3 requires that a registry of jurisdiction codes and Jurisdictional
> >     Registrars be maintained.  Section 11.2 of the -12 draft proposes that
> >     IANA maintain the registry.  Given the experimental nature of the URN
> >     registration, it seems to me to be premature to involve IANA, especially
> >     since the principles that the Designated Export must implement are
> >     likely to change over time.  Instead, it seems to me that the best
> >     choice for registrar is ITTIG-CNR, the proposer and developer of the URN
> >     namespace.
> >
> >     When the namespace definition is transitioned to a non-experimental
> >     status (including fixing a good set of policies to assign jurisdiction
> >     codes), the registry can be transferred to IANA to implement the proven
> >     policies.
> >
> >     Following this path requires only small changes for -13, viz., updating
> >     section 11.2.
> >
> >     Dale
> >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     Archived discussions:
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg03828.html
> >     16 Nov 2017
> >     "urn:lex draft v. 12"
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg03811.html
> >     starting 20 Sep 2017
> >     "Request for new URN namespace review: LEX"
> >     Message-Id:
> >     <[e-mail]
> >
> > <mailto:[e-mail]
> > .com>>
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01270.html
> >     starting 29 Apr 2014
> >     "Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex"
> >     Message-Id:
> >     <CALaySJJk5YiCQZqt6WoWkqfAzi2A04HEAH=[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01204.html
> >     starting 27 Mar 2013
> >     "Application for a formal URN NID"
> >     Message-Id: <23A64284-6B03-4B24-B680-54A61E96BECA at ittig.cnr.it
> >     <http://ittig.cnr.it>>
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01059.html
> >     15 Oct 2009
> >     "URN LEX Namespace submission"
> >
> > --
> > Barry
> > --
> > Barry Leiba  ([e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>)
> > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
>