Re: [urn] PWID URN namespace registration version 10

worley@ariadne.com Sun, 24 May 2020 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A5F3A1056 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 20:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 8A7Pbe51UHm4 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 20:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE4C3A1054 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 May 2020 20:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.101]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id ch84jhfuiSe0RchABjbKsN; Sun, 24 May 2020 03:18:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1590290339; bh=fCsrzwtDJxPRAuti0FIbyv1S6ddUw84oWJxvMB18Yd0=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=PQw8Zwg6Nhv13z5JWd4iMS+tj2eHW9NlKoTzTo3jF+/RBjiBG3dsQ1UpxzaEAdJcN Sn4S6/cqlYTxTPCM6vzx8a10yhFxWgA6xW0xG+6BsMTHROQGDM9HocAmlnwPTNe4ky RHCdjlYRujZ87CxFcsU5zLm/v9475HApBi8zQf2B9Wl2/oPHJVjvIZhIvvB6YOcwCG g+e0CrzX4kwxBJkdY8vq290yqrIrQvdD66aOt9czSruM6d6wKTb4ziFIHHXhhYFjb7 FL9knrHONHsRPMa8Pq4O35GrBn816yzrQzii1CvbalWzcSVkDbyb20Jsq/xxMLAI6V 6C3n19bUNkHbw==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id chA9jqjTqx2X8chA9je9ix; Sun, 24 May 2020 03:18:58 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04O3IuTK013592; Sat, 23 May 2020 23:18:56 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 04O3ItVU013582; Sat, 23 May 2020 23:18:55 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>, urn@ietf.org
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 23:18:55 -0400
Message-ID: <87tv06kokg.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/UM-CTyG8RA2y9cusFjpkKm1jiYg>
Subject: Re: [urn] PWID URN namespace registration version 10
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 24 May 2020 03:19:04 -0000

My apologies for not giving this attention sooner.

I've read version 10, and I think we should approve it.  I have the
following observations, which include one editorial suggestion.

I assume that the attachment to message
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/x_JVtfKpANKZz6Qr8iOqpsXJ8SU/
"PWID URN (shortened title)" is draft verson 10, despite that neither
the attachment's name or contents states that.

I particularly support the PWID proposal for the reasons I described in
"PWID as citation"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/s-CM7hcWtUeAz7ZVBF94rCHMtsQ/
-- namely that what a PWID references is transparent enough that one
could algorithmically transform a PWID pointing to one archive into a
query into another archive.  This is a genuinely new capability for URNs
(as far as I know) and only by deploying it in practice can we see what
benefits might be obtained.

I still dislike that there's no well-defined way to catalog allowed
values of archive-dimain.  But the number of values that are used will
likely remain small and there are unlikely to be "ownership conflicts"
about them, so this is unlikely to be a problem in practice.

A minor editorial point:
      *  'archive-domain' is defined as in (section 3.5) [RFC1034].
"archive-domain" is not defined in RFC 1034.  You need to say
      * 'archive-dimain' is <subdomain> as defined in (section 3.5) [RFC1034].
(Oddly, you do want to use <subdomain> rather than <domain> defined in
that section.)

I see that if utc-time is part of archival-time, then it must contain
both utc-hour and utc-minute, whereas utc-second and secfrac can be
added independently.  This is a bit of an inconsistency, but I assume
you intend it.

Given that precision-spec is currently limited to one of two values,
later extensions can be indicated by additional values defined for
this field.

Dale