Re: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)

[Eld Zierau <[e-mail]>]

Thank you so much!

I have attached a version 1 with the following smaller changes:
 - file name in header corrected to: pwid-urn-specification-1
 - date in template set to 14th of November
 - adding the checksum suggestion in section "Additional information" under explanation of how the specification may be extended in the future

Best regards, Eld

-----
Eld Zierau
Digital Preservation Specialist PhD
The Royal Danish Library
Digital Cultural Heritage
P.O. Box 2149, 1016 Copenhagen K
Ph. [phone] 
Email: [e-mail]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 1:55 PM
To: Eld Zierau <[e-mail]>; 'Dale R. Worley' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: VS: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)

Hello Eld, 

sorry for delay with reviewing this PWID draft. 

I say what Dale has said earlier: this version answers the concerns I've had earlier. I have no new issues, so I approve this namespace registration request. 

Section "Additional information" provides interesting information about how the specification may be extended in the future. I have another suggestion for future extensions of this specification: if the identified resource is a file, a checksum could be added in the end of the PWID. Then it would be possible to indicate that two different PWIDs identify the same content (two copies of the  resource harvested from two Web archives) or the content has changed over time; then PWIDs will  be otherwise identical but archival-time and checksum will differ.    

Best regards, 

Juha 

-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Eld Zierau <[e-mail]> 
Lähetetty: torstai 31. lokakuuta 2019 12.56
Vastaanottaja: 'Dale R. Worley' <[e-mail]>
Kopio: Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Aihe: RE: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)

Thank you Dale

I have generated and attached a text version of the pdf file from the previous mail: 
    draft-pwid-urn-specification-10.txt

I realized that I had generated it with European sized pages which are longer than US sized pages. I have therefore also generated and attached a version with pages fitting to the shorter pages: 
   draft-pwid-urn-specification-10-short-pages.txt

The only difference between the two documents are: the date (in order to distinguish them) and the page numbering in the table of contents

If there are any other issues, please let me know.

Best regards, Eld

-----
Eld Zierau
Digital Preservation Specialist PhD
The Royal Danish Library
Digital Cultural Heritage
P.O. Box 2149, 1016 Copenhagen K
Ph. [phone] 
Email: [e-mail]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:43 AM
To: Eld Zierau <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)

Eld Zierau <[e-mail]> writes:
> It is in a PDF, - please say if you want another format.

Please remember that IETF processes generally work with text documents.
Certainly if they need detailed comment, it's much easier to interline comments with a text original.

Though I don't have any comments on version 10.  I think it answers all of the concerns I had with previous versions.

Dale